USA: Police State?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Saturday, October 6, 2007 03:18
VIEWED: 18210
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:49 PM

Quote:
And as far as the USA being a "police state"- Have you looked at our incarceration rate? Highest in the world! At one point, Russia was higher (by a little bit) and so was South Africa. Not anymore! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! YEAH!!!!! I thought this county was about freedom but amazingly I woke up one day and found that we've turned into an authoritarian empire, complete with bootlickers, a phalanx of security agencies and a merc Praetorian Guard. (Halliburton).- Signy

Hey Signy, I got a question for you.
Are you saying that there are a lot of people presently incarcerated that should not be or are you saying we should stop incarcerating people found guilty of crimes?- BDN

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:08 PM

Hot topic. I might edit this post to add some cross links later. More sleepless nights ahead ;-)

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:02 PM

Are you saying that there are a lot of people presently incarcerated that should not be or are you saying we should stop incarcerating people found guilty of crimes?

I know you asked Siggy, but the first part of that is worth a second look.

I do think we gotta lotta folk in the slam that shouldn't be - incarceration, by intent, is for folks that are, or would be, a danger to the community if you let them out.

As far as prison having any kind of rehabilitative affect, I think we can universally conclude that whole concept is laughable.
(Stanford Prison Experiment, anyone?)

I mean, we got folks in jail for possession of marijuana for cryin out loud, I dunno about you, but the only thing a pothead is a threat to is the fridge!

Folks like Genarlow Wilson, who I've not forgotten, who shouldn't have been there in the first place - and yet REAL predators, more often than not, are given probation or house arrest, in spite of the fact that they are seven times more likely to re-offend than any other crime.
(I have statistics on proving that, right from the Dept of Justice, mind you)

We really need to re-evaluate what does and doesn't make someone such a danger to the community at large and thus needs to be locked up, and this includes the unconstitutional practice of setting ludicrous fines or bail, something that created a niche business (bail bondsman) that really has no reason to exist, because if the set bail is actually greater than the ENTIRE assets of the defendant, that qualifies as excessive, doesn't it ?

Some of this stuff is ridiculous, so many laws they cannot possibly be enforced, or even known well - and yet despite having lawyers to struggle all their lives to understand even a single branch of criminal code, we say ignorance is no defense ?

It's frankly impossible to live a normal life without breaking at least three laws a day, for example some of us are breaking the law just BEING here - as shown in the case of Bernie S, possession of telephone dialing equipment (a modem) in combination with a computer, is a Felony, at least in New Jersey.

Connecting to the internet at any greater speed than 56,000baud is still a felony in many states, although I've never seen a case based on that one, and hopefully never will - but if some cop wanted to get nitpicky on you...

Part of what makes a police state is the state considering anyone not employed by it a criminal, and we have become that in a de-facto fashion by passing so many laws that no one could possibly obey them all, every day.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:07 PM

Seperate thought, so imma post it seperate.

Was re-watching a movie this morning that's gone from ridiculous, to eerily prophetic, to downright scary....

Demolition Man.

And one of the things said by the prime antagonist, Phoenix, brought the UF/Tasering incident to mind instantly.

"Look man, you can't take away peoples right to be assholes!"

Is it just me, or does that flick get scarier over time - I can see "for your own good" folks like Hillary doing that to us, where as the other political end is more of a straight Orwellian crowd.

Just call me Frem Friendly, I guess....

-F

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:19 PM

Hello,

I'm not sure what the definition of a police state is, so we might want to start there when attempting to answer the question posed.

But anyway, it sounds as though Frem is advocating that many laws (perhaps even the majority of them) be stricken from the books.

I have always felt there were too many laws. I would love for there to be a committee review process by which laws could be studied for usefulness and then dissolved.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:26 PM

Personally, I'd like every law to be written with a sunset clause. There are still laws on the books that forbid driving your horse down Main Street on Sunday, or some such. Some badly written laws (like the CA three strikes law) that really need ammendment would never come up for review otherwise. And I think it's be a good thing for our lawgivers to rethink laws on a regular basis instead of dreaming up new ones.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure what the definition of a police state is, so we might want to start there when attempting to answer the question posed.

Basically a police state is a totalitarian state. Nazi Germany was a police state and so was Stalinist Russia. The US is not, nor could it honestly be interpreted as such.

Police brutality? Too many laws? Both are problems, but not reasons to call the US a totalitarian state, so right from the start, the issue is distorted. All of which leads me to believe that this thread is nothing more than an excuse for Signym to call certain people liars and Nazis. I’m a state-rightist, and I take a libertarian stand on many issues concerning the federal government. So there is a lot about certain issues here that I have strong opinions on, but I’m not going to waste my time arguing whether the US is a totalitarian state. It’s not.

Here’s the definition from the dictionary:

Police State: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/police%20state

Anyone arguing that the US is a police state should be required to state up front the definition they are using of “police state.”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:43 PM

Police State: a political unit characterized by

repressive governmental control of political CHECK
economic CHECK
and social life CHECK
usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police CHECK
and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures-CHECK

Busy now. Will explain later.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HERO

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I mean, we got folks in jail for possession of marijuana for cryin out loud, I dunno about you, but the only thing a pothead is a threat to is the fridge!

I just convicted a fellow of DUI for marijauna, not alcohol. Two car accident. Defendent walked away, but the other driver ended up in the hospital overnight. Don't smoke and drive.

But generally folk wont be jail for holding their marijauna joint. Its an MM, mandatory fine and licesne suspension, but no jail. Underage drinking is an M1 (6 months in jail, $1,000 fine), but if that 18 year-old kid picks up a joint rather then a can of beer, he'll get the MM. Weird.

Quote:

We really need to re-evaluate what does and doesn't make someone such a danger to the community at large and thus needs to be locked up, and this includes the unconstitutional practice of setting ludicrous fines or bail, something that created a niche business (bail bondsman) that really has no reason to exist, because if the set bail is actually greater than the ENTIRE assets of the defendant, that qualifies as excessive, doesn't it ?

Bail has nothing to do with a person's ability to pay. Its about the nature of the offense, the Defendant's prior record (or other pending charges), the risk of flight, and the person's record of attending court hearings (ie, if you blew off your court date once, you deserve a higher bond).

Quote:

we say ignorance is no defense ?

Could be a defense, depends on the crime. If you have no idea its against the law to murder someone, then should you be allowed to go your merry way with a 'don't let it happen again'?

H

HERO

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are still laws on the books that forbid driving your horse down Main Street on Sunday, or some such.

I don't know about where you live, but riding a horse down the street in my City makes no sense and would cause a substantial public disturbance and traffic problems (although, on Sunday there is less traffic). I think horse riding is a local issue and if you want your local horse laws gotten rid of fine, but don't try to make us conform with your crazy liberal horse policy.

H

JUDITH

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:58 PM

I don't believe that this country is a police state - yet. But if our congress continues to pass laws like the "Patriot" act we'll be well on our way. The erosion of civil liberties and continued ignoring of our social problems will lead us down the path. Hitler had the Jews: we have "terrorists." How does the US government define a "terrorist?" I really don't know.

I would define it as "any individual or group that intentionally perpertrates violence or the threat of violence against primarily civilian activities and/or locations."

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:29 PM

Judith, according to the extremely vague and convoluted descriptions I have seen in these various bits of legislation, you could actually cite the Boy Scouts as a paramilitary terrorist force.

The most chilling part is any statement to the effect of attempting to influance the government being a terrorist act - that's pure BS, they work for US, in theory, not the other way around so in essence it's our job, not to mention our right, to apply that influance, collectively or individually, and at no time did the Constitution or it's framers limit or define the specific means, and if you follow the history of the second amendment and the rather undeniable sentiment of Thomas Jefferson in 1787, they meant up to and very *specifically* including taking up arms against it.

""God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson - 1787

In short, they've legally made ANY act of defiance or resistance to their whim.. "Terrorism".... and that's just insane.

And if you don't take my word for it (please don't, make up your own mind, folks) look some of this stuff up yourself and read it - I kid you not, they've really gone that far with it.

Why do you think I sound so pissed ?
By my own actions to preserve and protect the very foundations on which our country rests, it's current administration would consider me both traitor and terrorist - as I am sure the British considered our troops in 1776.

I bet they were pretty pissed too.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:30 PM

Turkey is in effect a police state. Due Process doesn't exist. Warrants are not needed for arrest, they are for trial but people get lost in the prison system upon arrest and sometimes spend 10 years there before being found. If you want to have any organized protest you must file a petition with the city government outlining exactly the point you'll be trying to make, and if the government doesn't reject your petition you must bribe the police to provide security. The only thing the police will do is arrest you during your protest if anyone with a microphone deviates from the approved material. Leaders of causes who deviate do dissappear, then they're martyrs though of course.

The Turks also bug phones, intercept mail, all that.

So I'd give Turkey about a 7 out of 10 on my Police State Scale.

The US would get about a 3 IMO

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
Hitler had the Jews: we have "terrorists."

Well now...that is truly a remarkable statement! You are one totally hopeless and demented pinhead, ya know that?

Do you know anything, anything at all about anything in the real world?

Wait...don't answer that. I'm frikkin' cringing in advance anticipating your next retarded post.

HERO

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
I don't believe that this country is a police state - yet. But if our congress continues to pass laws like the "Patriot" act we'll be well on our way. The erosion of civil liberties and continued ignoring of our social problems will lead us down the path. Hitler had the Jews: we have "terrorists."

"Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown." Winston Churchill, 1939

Quote:

How does the US government define a "terrorist?" I really don't know.

I would define it as "any individual or group that intentionally perpertrates violence or the threat of violence against primarily civilian activities and/or locations."

Your definition would include the lawful armed forces of the United States and its allies during World War II. During that conflict the US Army Air Corps intentionally bombed civilian targets such as factories, rail yards, bridges, dams, and even entire cities such as Dresden and Hiroshima. These were not acts of terror, they were acts of war.

A terrosist is a person organization that enages in terrorism. "Terrorism" is defined as the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "Unlawful" is the most important word in that definition.

I believe a terrorist is not defined by the act but rather the unlawful nature of the person committing the act as well as its intended consequence.

H

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:48 PM

COUGHING IS ILLEGAL
Authorities said Thursday they have charged a man with assault on a government official after an officer said the man coughed into his face during a traffic stop.

Quote:
Morrisville Officer Chris Gill said in his report that Kent Kauffman looked into his eyes before "hacking" in his face three times. Kauffman said he did cough from the window of his minivan but did so toward Gill's waist. "He says I coughed in his face," Kauffman told The News & Observer of Raleigh. "But that would only work if he had a 4-foot-long face."

www.wxii12.com/news/14217423/detail.html

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Part of what makes a police state is the state considering anyone not employed by it a criminal, and we have become that in a de-facto fashion by passing so many laws that no one could possibly obey them all, every day.

Absolutely, a fact most pro-government types miss- unless it bites them on the ass.

Quote:
Was re-watching a movie this morning that's gone from ridiculous, to eerily prophetic, to downright scary....

Demolition Man.

Is it just me, or does that flick get scarier over time - I can see "for your own good" folks like Hillary doing that to us, where as the other political end is more of a straight Orwellian crowd.

Just call me Frem Friendly, I guess....

I've always been aware of the genius of this film, neither fully right OR left, just down the middle unsettling.

Oscar Meyer Chrisisall

LEADB

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are still laws on the books that forbid driving your horse down Main Street on Sunday, or some such.

I don't know about where you live, but riding a horse down the street in my City makes no sense and would cause a substantial public disturbance and traffic problems (although, on Sunday there is less traffic). I think horse riding is a local issue and if you want your local horse laws gotten rid of fine, but don't try to make us conform with your crazy liberal horse policy.

H

Then you'll love the old law that went something like "should an automobile spook a horse, the automobile will be taken to a field and dismantled"

Edit: A bit more practically, the Amish still drive horse and buggy; there are many communities, even cities close to these Amish communities, where a horse drawn buggy is not an unusual sight. Point: there's a lot of diversity out there.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:13 PM

Jong,

there may be more history to your post. YOu and Judith may be having a beligerent back and forth that isn't in this thread, but weren't you just telling us on the "murders gay people" thread that I was insulting to you, and didn't you just diatribe about liberals chasing off you poor conservatives with things like "eat shit and die you war you pro-war sheeple."

Now you're calling people pinheads and retards?

I can see why you'd think the problem was so one-sided...

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:38 PM

Yes...you're correct here.

I did a no-no out of anger, and it was wrong.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:51 PM

Quote:
Turkey is in effect a police state. Due Process doesn't exist. Warrants are not needed for arrest, they are for trial but people get lost in the prison system upon arrest and sometimes spend 10 years there before being found.

Say, did you hear about the people who got "lost" in our prison system after 9-11? Due to (1) not being allowed a lawyer (2) the govt not making available a "prisoner's list" (3) prisoners being moved from prison to prison w/o notice, making it extremely difficult for their relatives or lawyers to find out if they were indeed in prison, much less keep up with them.

And let's not forget the Military Commissions Act (2006) which could allow ANYONE to be declared an "enemy combatant" and to disappear into Gitmo or be shipped overseas for "questioning", then to be followed by a trial before a Military Tribunal in which the defense is not allowed to see the charges or the evidence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#The_Act_
may_apply_to_U.S._citizens

Quote:
If you want to have any organized protest you must file a petition with the city government outlining exactly the point you'll be trying to make

And the route you are to take and the number of portesters you think will be there. Same here. And if the government rejects your permit you must face tear gas, rubber bullets, beatings, water cannons, and (at times) live rounds (I'll repost an link to the violence against the anti-FTAA demonstrators in Miami)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:02 PM

Thanks Jong,

actually, I'm slightly of a different opinion. We're all capable of being rude. I think so long as its an occasional outburst, it shouldn't take over a thread. If I'm called a pinhead or a liberal faggot or something, I'm not neccesarily likely to even waste time on it. I'll just continue on with the conversation. I might get colorful myself, but I'm generally not truly offended to the point where I must adress the name calling and my feelings.

We're talking politics here. It's a heated topic, and it should be allowed to get heated, and it's going to get personal some times, and I don't really see why that's such a bad thing...so long as it doesn't take over the discussion...so long as we can bring it back to the topic at hand.

Frankly, I think this board is really good at that, on both sides(I should say all sides). Maybe somebody knows a better one, but I dont'. try having an on topic conversation on a youtube video link as an example.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:08 PM

Police State: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of

politics Hell, you can't get within a quarter-mile of a Bush appearance without being vetted by Republican Party aparatchiks, and this is enforced by local police. Bush created the infamous "Free Speech" Zones

Quote:
When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.” At Neel’s trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine “people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views” in a so-called free speech area.

www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Then there was the recent tasering of a kid who was doing nothing more than exercising his right to free speech, violent responses to peaceful demonstrations in Miami, Oakland, Los Angeles, and elsewhere and widespread registration and vote manipulation- of the kind you might expect to see in Mexico. Repression of political life by the government here in the good-old USA? You bet!

the economy Billions for the wealthy. Corporate welfare up the wazoo. Screw the poor and middle class.

social life Should to government get involved with who you're banging or whether you believe in Jesus or abstinence only?

intellectual life Anti-evolutionists. 'Nuf said,

usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police Seen several examples just recently. Man guilty of assault by coughing Sheesh!

and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures I refer you to the so-called Patriot Act and the Military Comissions Act which allows warrantless snooping and eliminates habeas corpus.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:11 PM

yeah, I was going to mention the free speech zones.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:14 PM

"A terrosist is a person organization that enages in terrorism. "Terrorism" is defined as the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "Unlawful" is the most important word in that definition."

Lawyerese to the hilt.

I note that "force" is not specifically defined as physical violence, therefore it would include boycotts, social pressure and picketing.

And who, exactly, defines what is lawful or not ?
Why, the very folks that force would be applied against, most of the time.

Like I said, off the deep end.

What's next, hiring Nurse Ratched to head up Homeland Security.. oh, wait, we got Chertoff, a rabid extremist who co-authored the Patriot Act, nevermind...

Imma save any political snark, mind you, and would request that others do the same, but I will note extremists in either direction, cause it shows them to be less realistic and rational about means and causes.

Besides, both ends AND the center, of the political spectrum are equally guilty, so let's hammer em all as they deserve.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:16 PM

My SO, whose opinion I respect highly, is rather nervous about Halliburton and the upcoming Presidential elections. It's not something I see personally but I'll certainly give it some thought.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:21 PM

I don't know that both ends of the spectrum are guilty.

I do know that both parties are, and that when taken as a whole, there may be a difference, but its more about demeanor and what they sell than what they do.

I think the real problem is that most democrats sit in the same spectrum as the republicans, not at the opposite end of that spectrum... oh, but they believe in women's right to abortion so they're different.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:24 PM

AMEN.

Both Dems and Repubs have forgotten what the whole nation is supposed to be about. But I guess when your pockets are filled with corporate money and you occupy the halls of power it's easy to forget who you're working for.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JUDITH

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:12 PM

Jongsstraw, I was wrong in the other thread as well. Thank you. It seems we both get rather strident. I wish to thank R9, too for refereeing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
Hitler had the Jews: we have "terrorists."

Well now...that is truly a remarkable statement!

I believe that you missed the point of the comparison. To bring about a 'police state,' it is beneficial to have a scapegoat to begin the process of takeover. Terrorists are a fact of life and if we change how we live, how we're governed and how we go about our business they 'win.' There is no 'victory' or 'surrender' in this 'war.' That's why terrorists as a rationale for curtailing civil rights is more than dangerous. I don't just mistrust the president, I mistrust most of the executive and legislative branches. ...Not so sure about the judiciary... they may be complicit.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Is it just me, or does that flick get scarier over time - I can see "for your own good" folks like Hillary doing that to us, where as the other political end is more of a straight Orwellian crowd.

Every time I see the movie I, Robot, I think of folks like Hillary in the role of VIKI, the robot who takes over the world to obey the first Law of Robotics:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

The mindset is the same. We need protection from harm, and that protection must come at any price. Our society is increasingly fearful of harm and blaming harm on others. We've lost our sense of self responsibility, and therefore our ability to protect ourselves. We wrap laws around us like security blankets, and call Daddy/Mommy we have a conflict. We have infantalized ourselves and the result is more of us are in time out than in any other country.

Most politicians, like Hillary, are just campaigning on who can protect us best.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

GEEZER

Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:33 PM

Yep. Evil police, like these, all in just the past week:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_263194232.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/offtopic/sns-ap-odd-chimney-rescue,
0,7140423.story

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-defibrillator3sep26,
0,5447892.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

Even tazered this one.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/393070/hysterical_man_survive
s_twostory_fall.html

These are Canadians, but just as bad.

http://www.trucknews.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=73733&issue=09162007

And taking food from the hungry in Zimbabwe.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/23/2040754.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:14 PM

Geezer, police are like people everywhere: some good, some bad (altho in my obervation being on a police force has a corrupting or corrosive influence.)

The problem I have - as I said b4 in the other thread- is a systems problem. Once you remove oversight (judicial or otherwise) from the enforcement of the law: ie requiring search warrants, habeas corpus, jury trial by peers, civilian comissions etc- then you have an out-of-control force.

I would not particularly want to be a cop. They deal with perps and victims every day and eventually it corrodes your view of people. Combine that with the knowledege that they can carry lethal force, and it prolly causes many police to see the average citizen as something less, or at least something apart.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, police are like people everywhere: some good, some bad (altho in my obervation being on a police force has a corrupting or corrosive influence.)

The problem I have - as I said b4 in the other thread- is a systems problem. Once you remove oversight (judicial or otherwise) from the enforcement of the law: ie requiring search warrants, habeas corpus, jury trial by peers, civilian comissions etc- then you have an out-of-control force.

Considering that in the vast majority of cases, probably hundreds of thousands to one, these rights are respected, it's interesting that you don't have any problem painting our entire country, at all levels of government, as a police state. You ignore the daily efforts of law enforcement nationwide to keep you and yours safe and to respond to accidents and crimes against persons and property, and focus on a few issues and situations. For every example of police misconduct (which tend to make the press much more often than when they do their jobs properly), I can probably find several examples of good police work.

Take a trip to Myanmar or North Korea and find out what a police state is really about. If you make it back alive, then we'll talk.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:10 AM

Geezer, designing a nation is like designing a circuit, or a QA program. There has to be feedback in place at several steps. Oversight, evaluation, corrective action, re-evaluation.

Our FF tried to get it right. I think some things happened that they couldn't anticipate, like the advance in communications, the growth of corporations, and the drift towards centralized/ presidential power, but they DID build in three branches of government to keep an eye on each other. If you eliminate one branch- which is essentially what is happening- the system can run amock.

Looking at it from "How do we keep from developing a police state?" I see a lot of 'upstream' errors: problems that are not the fault of the individual cop.

For example, WHY do we have both the highest incarceration rate AND the highest murder rate? Something is truly askew. Also, orders are issued by the Secret Service- who are not "police" in the traditional sense and don't have the same oversight- but those orders are enforced by local police who answer to a different authority. Then there is the matter of training. The issue with dealing with perps day in and day out: maybe rotating jobs from police to some other service organization would prevent burnout and alienation. And then there's the issue of not needing warrants to snoop around, or habeas corpus to imprison someone. And there is the general accpetance of authoritarianism that prevents people from looking at the problems in a "How do we keep this from happening again?" .

Bringing up examples of where the system has failed is not meant to criticise individual police or even the entire group, but simply to examine what went wrong in a problem-solving way.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:29 AM

Hello,

I have to agree with those who have compared the Nazi's scapegoat 'Jew Problem' with the War on Terror. I would add the suggestion that the War on Terror is actually more dangerous to the life and liberties of our populace.

Someone made an example of Winston Churchill's speech. In it, he mentioned that civil liberties must be temporarily suspended sometimes during war. He assures us that these suspensions will be temporary and that the rights of the people will be returned ASAP.

Unfortunately, England can defeat Germany. That war has an end. Hitler can even exterminate all the jews, and indeed he could have potentially exterminated every non-German on Earth. Unfortunately, the United States cannot defeat Terror.

Al Qaida isn't terror. They are one image of terror. There must be a hundred 'terrorist' organizations in the world. Many times that number of organizations could be perceived as terrorists, if you sufficiently broaden the definition. There are camps of armed Americans living in weird communities. They generally don't bother anyone. But they have some pretty radical views, and they're armed. The government can make you fear them.

If the administration chooses, it can perpetuate the 'War on Terror' indefinitely. We've been fighting this war for the better part of a decade, and we could easily keep fighting it for a century. There's really no reason for it to ever end, unless they choose to end it. Because the war can continue indefinitely, that means the suspension and limitation of civil liberties can continue indefinitely.

You can kill all the Germans. You can roast all the inferior races. But you can't kill terror. Terror lives on in the hearts and minds of every human on Earth, and the United States government is currently doing its upmost to make sure it never dies.

One day, the United States will tell its citizens that the only way for them to be safe is for them to surrender their arms. This might be a tough sell at first. After all, scared people don't want to surrender their only perceived means of protection. But they will be told that any weapon is more likely to be used against them, than for their protection. Only the government has the power and wisdom to possess arms. Only the government can protect you.

And enough of the citizenry will believe this. And they will vote away their freedom. They will surrender their arms. And then things will become slowly, incrementally, more restrictive. We will vote away our freedoms one at a time. Each time, a minority will complain. They will be told that they are rediculous.

One day, the restriction on freedom will be so great that it feels unbearable. But by that time, the government will have all the guns. This will prevent even a symbolic armed resistance effort from taking place. If any general resistance somehow occurred, the government would use that resistance as an excuse to strip any lingering freedoms from the populace.

This is a possible future. It's the future I fear. I don't worry much about Al Qaida. This is what brings Terror into my heart.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:42 AM

"Hey Signy, I got a question for you.
Are you saying that there are a lot of people presently incarcerated that should not be or are you saying we should stop incarcerating people found guilty of crimes?"

It's about 1 in 8 wrongly convicted on death row, using DNA testing.

But drug use which accounts for the majority of incarcerations should be decriminalized.

MY answer is yes, there are a lot of people in jail who should not be there.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
One day, the restriction on freedom will be so great that it feels unbearable. But by that time, the government will have all the guns. This will prevent even a symbolic armed resistance effort from taking place. If any general resistance somehow occurred, the government would use that resistance as an excuse to strip any lingering freedoms from the populace.

Yeah, I liked that movie too. I thought it was V ery good.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This is a possible future. It's the future I fear. I don't worry much about Al Qaida. This is what brings Terror into my heart.

Oh you were speaking literally, my bad, carry on.

SERGEANTX

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:
Personally, I'd like every law to be written with a sunset clause. There are still laws on the books that forbid driving your horse down Main Street on Sunday, or some such. Some badly written laws (like the CA three strikes law) that really need ammendment would never come up for review otherwise. And I think it's be a good thing for our lawgivers to rethink laws on a regular basis instead of dreaming up new ones.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Part of what makes a police state is the state considering anyone not employed by it a criminal, and we have become that in a de-facto fashion by passing so many laws that no one could possibly obey them all, every day.

Absolutely, a fact most pro-government types miss- unless it bites them on the ass.

You all are failing to appreciate the importance of laws like this. They are important tools when the authorities just know that someone is guilty, but it can't be proven. Or if someone is disrespectful of the law. Or they just have it coming. Or there's a woman...

Also, they give Hero hard-ons.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:56 AM

Hello Nobody,

Eh, the movie was pretty good, but it had big plot holes. I can not figure out how the protagonist was able to create and distribute his masks to the entire population of the city without being detected or derailed. It would be much more believable if he had a 'Shadow' style community of assistants whom he'd saved from various injustices, and if these people aided him in things he could obviously not accomplish alone.

But the movie or comic book of 'V' does not originate the idea of the future I present. It is merely an echo, one of many through the years.

The ideas I presented originated, as far as I know, with the Founders of the United States. It is only now that I see their fears become manifest. It is now that their foresight becomes my Terror.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, designing a nation is like designing a circuit, or a QA program. There has to be feedback in place at several steps. Oversight, evaluation, corrective action, re-evaluation.

Which actually works pretty good. Do a little research on police misconduct at the end of the 19th century as compared to now. Heck, compare the middle of the 20th century to now. Beating or tricking confessions out of suspects used to be standard practice. Not so much any more.

Consider the things that, say, Lincoln and FDR got away with by executive fiat compared to now. Has anyone recently put all the muslims in the US in concentration camps, as the US government did to Japanese-Americans during WWII? That couldn't happen today. We don't even do that to people in the country illegaly. We just ship a small percentage of them back home.

As to why there are more murders, perhaps you should ask the murderers. I agree that there's too many people in jail, but I suspect that the majority of folk don't have a problem with it, and their votes count too.

If you got valid problems with specific actions by the police - local, state, or federal - by all means raise them. Delaring that the entire country is a police state because every law enforcement system doesn't meet your exact requirements is quite an exaggeration and only ends up polarizing folks instead of getting to consensus on a solution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

One day, the United States will tell its citizens that the only way for them to be safe is for them to surrender their arms.

You're expecting that Mrs. Clinton will be elected President, then?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:19 AM

arms as in weapons, or arms? You'll have to pry my arm from my cold dead...uh

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:22 AM

All the available 'arms' in the world are nothing compared to government's pervasive snooping, data-mining, video cameras - and people like Geezer who want to convince everyone that it's just SOP.

***************************************************************
SSHHHHHhhhh ... it's nothing ... go to sleep ... sleeep ... sleeeeeep ...

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:26 AM

Ayep, Terrorism is a TACTIC, not a force - wagin a "War on Terror" is like waging a "War on Flanking Maneuvers"... to directly quote Jayne,
"It don't make no sense!"

As far as the rest of it...

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
James Madison - June 29 1787

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison - April 20 1795

Also cited to Madison but not properly referenced.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

Madison was an ass, and a Federalist - but he wasn't a complete moron.

He didn't think the second amendment was necessary, or any specific check against a standing army loyal to the Federal Government alone, cause he thought that no one would ever dare stoop so low and the militia would kick it's ass anyway, so it was a moot point to him.

Patrick Henry rather firmly sought to disabuse him of that notion, and so we wound up with the second amendment, and no direct provision against a standing army other than limiting the budget of one to the term of two years.

Once again, I use the sig line I do for very good reason - knowledge of the past is the key to future prevention, some of us saw this coming, some of us raised hell, and yet were shouted down by folk who didn't understand the dangers.

Problems like this, you have to attack at the roots, or you'll be fighting branch after branch as they multiply faster than you can hack them down, and the root issue here, I think, would be Constitutional Compliance.

The Patriot Act, and relative acts, are NOT amendments, nor are Federal Directives or even Executive Orders and the US Constitution, not those things, is the supreme law of the land - those things CAN NOT override it, period.

We GOT a system in place for this, we need to use it, people.
http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html
If it ain't SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED by this document, the FedGov CAN NOT DO IT.
Is this clear enough ?

Your state maybe can, but the FedGov is *extremely* limited in what they may do, and enforcing those limits would solve hundreds of these little problems at every stroke.
It's really not simpler than that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:32 AM

didn't madison and jefferson campaign for states rights together and help to foster dissent against the alien and sedition act?

I might be wrong about that, but its an old memory I have of the issue.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:41 AM

Yep, once many of the Federalists revealed their true colors as proto-fascist, Madison turned on em and hooked up with Jefferson to kick their ass, and that nearly came to the point of secession from the union of Kentucky and Virginia.

That was the first attempt at something like the Patriot Act, and there have been many more since - regardless of party, there have always been these people trying to subvert our Gov, in one long unbroken chain all the way to the present day.

Once their power is broken, it's usually followed by a purge, and within about 15 years, people forget, and it happens again - this explains my passion to "Put the boot in and finish the job" once we throw the current collective out of office, if any are still in this country where we can put our hands on em, cause most of em mean to leave it before the purge.

It's a cycle, and worse with every turn, like a decaying orbit, and I would like to stop it before it destroys us as a people and a country.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:45 AM

BTW - speaking of the federal government and the constitution -
there seems to be a swing to the position that only those rights that are specifically enumerated are protected, and then only from abuse by the federal government specifically. So, for example, if state, or national or international companies collect information on you, and the government buys it (seeing as it's for sale) and it's not about any criminal activity (not subject to probable cause) or about your (specifically protected) 'free' political speech - then it's not forbidden. That's the trend these days.

***************************************************************
Big Brother - he's making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty ..........

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:38 AM

Quote:
Which actually works pretty good. Do a little research on police misconduct at the end of the 19th century as compared to now. Heck, compare the middle of the 20th century to now. Beating or tricking confessions out of suspects used to be standard practice. Not so much any more.

I I think you should be looking at direction (derivative) not a static picture. The direction is the wrong way, and mechanisms to control the rate of change (public opinion, judicial review, habeas corpus, etc) are being removed deliberately.

Quote:
As to why there are more murders, perhaps you should ask the murderers.

Again, this is a systems problem, not a personal issue. I don't think the murderers have any better idea than you do- prolly less.

Quote:
If you got valid problems with specific actions by the police - local, state, or federal - by all means raise them.

Why thank you! I think I just did.

Quote:
Declaring that the entire country is a police state because every law enforcement system doesn't meet your exact requirements is quite an exaggeration and only ends up polarizing folks instead of getting to consensus on a solution.

Seems to me that if we're not a police state yet, we're heading in that direction. And I suggested several possible solutions: Better training, job rotation, better lines of command... plus implied several others, like rescinding the Military Commissions Act and provisions of the Patriot Act,... to serve as a basis of discussion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BTW - speaking of the federal government and the constitution -
there seems to be a swing to the position that only those rights that are specifically enumerated are protected, and then only from abuse by the federal government specifically. So, for example, if state, or national or international companies collect information on you, and the government buys it (seeing as it's for sale) and it's not about any criminal activity (not subject to probable cause) or about your (specifically protected) 'free' political speech - then it's not forbidden. That's the trend these days.

***************************************************************
Big Brother - he's making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty ..........

Nothing new. In the 1980's the "information sharing" agreement between GCHQ (UK electronic intelligence dept) and the NSA worked like this. Each organisation had an officer at the other outfits headquarters that acted as a liason. The NSA guy in Cheltenham would be handed intercepts of interest to the US that were received by the UK.

The GCHQ officer in Maryland would use the NSA's equipment to watch subversives in the US and then pass the information back to the NSA who would label it as "derived from foreign intelligence sources."

Since the NSA was not spying on Americans they stayed within the letter of the law.

The CIA did invent the notion of plausable deniability you know?

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 4:02 AM

One of the new parts is the programs that look for context sensitive phrases, not just key words, on billions of conversations a day, not just on a few individuals. This isn't just J Edgar making a file on John Lennon. It puts everyone under scrutiny.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 4:04 AM

Quote:
Nothing new.

Fletch2- I remember the 60's, 70's, 80's and so forth. I have NO DESIRE to repeat - and expand on- the errors of the past. Do you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Nothing new.
Fletch2- I remember the 60's, 70's, 80's and so forth. I have NO DESIRE to repeat - and expand on- the errors of the past. Do you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

No but the idea that things were somehow better "back then" is self delusional. The US has always spied on its citizens legally or illegally and had the "Alphabet" agencies had the tech back in '67 or '77 or '87 I'm sure they would have used it. The desire to snoop into everone's lives is nothing new and has existed during administrations of every kind, what makes things so dangerous today is that technology makes more things possible.

The core problem as I see it is this. We all have embaressing little secrets ranging from truely petty things like fibs to co-workers, through padded resumes and infidelity to actual crimes large and small. We all have very good reasons to not want anyone looking into our affairs. That's part of the reason why in criminal cases the people make it hard for the government to spie on them. They want proof before they give permission, something that is often hard in police work. However the People as a whole would rather the guilty go free than give the government authority to look at everyone's little secrets at a whim.

The problem with "national security" is that an awfull lot is at stake if you are caught unawares, thousands can die, it's nasty. In that environment the idea that you should let the guilty hide behind the innocent seems insane, the constitution as suicide pact if you will. So left to it's own devices any intelligence service that is doing its job will maximise the amount of data it collects and analyses even if it's done illegally, because the costs are seen as being too high if they dont.

Which means that the situation now is the same as it always was. We charge intelligence agencies to keep us safe from the bad guys. Since they have no idea who the bad guys are they try to spy on as many suspects as they can. We respond by curtailing that power, they diligently circumvent that oversight we curtail that work around etc.

That's why that issue is a constant struggle to find some neutral safe ground. You're a chemist, I'm sure you know what a buffer solution is and how it responds to changes in pH? As government intrusion rises, the outrage of citizens rises to counter it to maintain neutrality. Witness the setbacks to the Patriot act in the federal courts of late. As long as the system remains balanced then we're in good shape.

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:06 AM

"because the costs are seen as being too high if they dont"

And that's a primary fallacy. What the government is lacking is 'human intelligence'. But rather than try to beef up on it, the government (and by that I mean the administration which gives the orders) puts its entire population under technological surveillance (or in the case of phone trap-and-trace and pen-registers, 35+ MILLION in the US). Now the chances of finding a particular and vital piece of information are nil. I guarantee, not one life will be saved. But the political effects - that's where you get your payback.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:17 AM

The thing that amazes me is that the same people who never see anything wrong with the erosions of our civil rights always defend the condition of them by pointing out all of the hard won things that were and continue to be fought for by the very types of people they are marginalizing.

You can't point to the fact that measures in the patriot act have been struck down as evidence that everything is cool, even while you tell the people that have been working to educate everybody about it that they are overreacting.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
You can't point to the fact that measures in the patriot act have been struck down as evidence that everything is cool, even while you tell the people that have been working to educate everybody about it that they are overreacting.

Actually, I can. And the reason I can is because of threads like this. As I said, I don’t deny the problems, and I think the problems should be discussed and dealt with, but people who think that the existence of these problems means we are a totalitarian state, don’t have any interest in discussing or dealing with the problems – they just want to shout about their fundamentalist views or embrace their paranoia, neither are constructive positions to take.

And it was Hero who predicted that measures of the Patriot Act would be and should be overturned months and months ago on this board, not the usual anarchist fundamentalists. How do you explain that? It’s quite obvious – just because people like Hero, Geezer, Fletch2 and myself don’t accuse the entire US of being a totalitarian state doesn’t mean we don’t see that there are problems, it just means our view of those problems are grounded with some degree of perspective. Now we may not share the same views as others or even agree amongst ourselves about those views, but we don’t assume that since the whole world isn’t bending to our will at every corner that we should just throw the whole country out as a police state.

Signym’s desire to label the US as a police state because he found examples of abuse is so irrational and so hysterical that nothing intelligent can come from him until he is willing to back away from this fundamentalism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, September 28, 2007 9:13 AM

Well sir,

then I will first say I'm glad that there's common ground on some of these issues. Second, I'll take your word for it that it is so, and lament the fact that in all of my time reading here I've managed to miss most if not all posts from you and Hero that were hard words for some of the systematic violations of our civil liberties in this country,

but 3rd, I see the foundations of police-state upon us. I think asking whether we are a police state is a gestalt look at all of our liberties being attacked simultaneously by the current administration, and what that might mean to us.

It may still be a long road to police-state, and with good fortune for this nation, we won't get there...but there's a massive highway project to hell underway as we speak.

And honestly, it feels like we're just a handful of federal judges away from the law always tipping in favor of the side of money and authority. Give us two more neocon terms, which will come by the votes of those who pretend everything is fine, and we can probably kiss it all goodbye.

So, the statement may be hyperbolic, but I think its worth being extremely concerned about now. Are there countries with worse laws and worse civil liberties than us? Yeah, most of them. And so what? When we're debating whether or not we're a police state, I don't think we need to be on par with China for it to be so.

I'm glad to hear that the Republicans on this board haven't and won't sit still for the shredding of our constitution. Are you really going to be able to hold your noses and vote for a democrat in 08?

And yes, before you tell me, I know most of them suck on that issue too...just ever-so slightly less so than the current crop.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, September 28, 2007 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
And honestly, it feels like we're just a handful of federal judges away from the law always tipping in favor of the side of money and authority. Give us two more neocon terms, which will come by the votes of those who pretend everything is fine, and we can probably kiss it all goodbye.

Well, I’d have to admit that judges are an area in which I find a lot of concern too. Judges making law instead of interpreting it is not something I’m very comfortable with. One of the most frightful laws to ever be imposed is the Kelo v New London in which eminent domain was expanded to include the transfer of private property between private owners for economic development. None of the conservative judges supported this ruling, yet all of the Liberal judges did. One of the most unfortunate directions we could go in this country is to start the precedent that your property rights are less important because you’re poor. That’s wrong on so many levels, and the fact that this decision fell so cleanly between Conservative and Liberals on the Supreme Court says something about where these philosophies differ.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I'm glad to hear that the Republicans on this board haven't and won't sit still for the shredding of our constitution. Are you really going to be able to hold your noses and vote for a democrat in 08?

And yes, before you tell me, I know most of them suck on that issue too...just ever-so slightly less so than the current crop.

Totalitarianism is a threat that looms over every liberal democracy and always has, and always will. However, totalitarianism isn’t a partisan issue (at least not at this stage), but that many people see it that way, says a lot for exactly what people mean when they accuse the US of becoming a police state. In the 1940s the US (under a Democrat government) interned Americans in concentrations camps for being of Japanese ancestry, yet even at that time we were not a police state. Yet 60 years later, the US government remains a federal republic of representatives elected by the people under the rule of law. The staying power of a liberal democracy is defined by its flexibility – how well it adapts to new challenges in its path, and as long it remains flexible, it probably won’t break. Not just those challenges that come from outside but from inside as well – the civil rights movement for instance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
So, the statement may be hyperbolic, but I think its worth being extremely concerned about now. Are there countries with worse laws and worse civil liberties than us? Yeah, most of them. And so what? When we're debating whether or not we're a police state, I don't think we need to be on par with China for it to be so.

Well, I think, you do, if you intend to formulate an honest argument. The definition of a police state is based on examples of other countries, so the minute you start accusing the US of being a police state it conjures images and ideas related to other countries, like Nazi Germany. When someone points out that the US shares little resembles with the definition of a police state and by extension the countries on which the definition is based, you can’t then complain about comparing the US to other countries. That’s why I stated in my first post in this thread, that if anyone intends to argue that the US is or is becoming a police state then they must state up front their definition of a “police state”.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, September 28, 2007 12:11 PM

I'm not even gonna pretend, my interest in this issue was sparked in the early 80's and I have been watching the slide ever since.

Imagine being on a train as it hits a spur line you *know* ends in a brick wall, and trying to convince the engineer to slow down, stop, call ahead, or do SOMETHING - but being laughed off by him and then shouted down by your fellow passengers, who think everything is fine and that you are overreacting.

Now imagine doing it for 20 years.

Eventually you begin to focus less on trying to prevent it, and start bracing for the crash, yanno ?

I don't think it's inevitable just quite yet, but it's a damn certain thing if we don't get off this spur line.

Fact is, most folks will only stand up and start makin an issue of it when that wall is looming in plain view, and at that point - it's far too late.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SERGEANTX

Friday, September 28, 2007 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't think it's inevitable just quite yet, but it's a damn certain thing if we don't get off this spur line.

That characterizes the situation about right. And as our upcoming leadership "choices" illustrate, all we're really managing to do is to discuss whether we should speed up or not.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 12:53 PM

Fketch2: First you say:

Quote:
The idea that things were somehow better "back then" is self delusional. The US has always spied on its citizens legally or illegally

Then you completely undercut your own argument by saying:

Quote:
and had the "Alphabet" agencies had the tech back in '67 or '77 or '87 I'm sure they would have used it.

To reiterate your own words, there is the NEW technology which makes snooping faster, easier, cheaper, and more complete, and it's being used today.

Quote:
The desire to snoop into everyone's lives is nothing new and has existed during administrations of every kind, what makes things so dangerous today is that technology makes more things possible.

So in your words, things ARE worse than before. Also, many Administrations did NOT snoop on people to the same degree. Nixon was the high-water mark of his day, and his kind of internal spying (by the FBI, IRS, satellite, and non-USA agencies) was made illegal for a reason: It would discourage other Presidents from doing the same. I don't think you could show that Ford, Carter, HW Bush or even Clinton spied on people anywhere near as aggressively or extensively as GW Bush. But you're welcome to look into it to bolster your case that all Administration are equally guilty.

Quote:
The problem with "national security" is that an awfull lot is at stake if you are caught unawares, thousands can die, it's nasty. In that environment the idea that you should let the guilty hide behind the innocent seems insane, the constitution as suicide pact if you will. So left to it's own devices any intelligence service that is doing its job will maximise the amount of data it collects and analyses even if it's done illegally, because the costs are seen as being too high if they don't.

First of all, there is no clear indication that massive fishing expeditions produce any sort of reliable evidence. There is such as thing as TOO MUCH data. What you wind up with is 99.9999+% "false hits", which means that most people placed on "no fly" lists or who have their accounts frozen (from financial transaction monitoring requirements) are 100% innocent. But those lists are --- yanno--- SECRET. Hard to know if you're one one of them, even harder to get off.
If you look at arrests of people who truly ARE terrorists it's from tips, not widespread snooping. And terrorist who were never arrested were so deeply under the radar that tagging them would have pulled up just about every mentally competent adult in the USA and then some

Quote:
Which means that the situation now is the same as it always was.

You're not even consistent with your own logic. If we're NOT facing an unprecedented risk, why are we facing unprecedented snooping?

Quote:
You're a chemist, I'm sure you know what a buffer solution is and how it responds to changes in pH? As government intrusion rises, the outrage of citizens rises to counter it to maintain neutrality. Witness the setbacks to the Patriot act in the federal courts of late. As long as the system remains balanced then we're in good shape.

But the situation is not balanced. And telling people "It's all the same" when it truly is not blunts the very outrage that you're system depends on. Which leads me to conclude that, really, you have no fundamental problem with what's happening despite your own admission that this is all very different from the past 50 years.

If you're going to make an argument for widespread surveillance- which is what we have going on now- make the argument that it's necessary and we can discuss it along those lines. Don't try to hop back and forth between "It's new but necessary" and "It's all the same" because those arguments just can't logically belong in the same train of thought.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
All the available 'arms' in the world are nothing compared to government's pervasive snooping, data-mining, video cameras - and people like Geezer who want to convince everyone that it's just SOP.

***************************************************************
SSHHHHHhhhh ... it's nothing ... go to sleep ... sleeep ... sleeeeeep ...

May I be the first to say - "AD HOMINIM ATTACK"

And I don't consider it SOP, I just doubt that it's anywhere near as pervasive as the tin-foil hat brigade (not naming any names) believes.

Now if you really want video cameras, try England. They got a bunch.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:04 PM

Quote:
[And I don't consider it SOP, I just doubt that it's anywhere near as pervasive as the tin-foil hat brigade (not naming any names) believes.

So, how "pervasive" is "pervasive" in your book? How many people unconnected with ANY sort of "terrorist" activity being spied on does it take to trip your threshold? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

At what level do YOU say that we have widespread surveillance based on nothing more than fishing expeditions?

Quote:
Now if you really want video cameras, try England. They got a bunch.

And we should follow their example... why, exactly? Why stop there? How about Turkey? Or Myanmar?

The difference between you and me Geezer? You tend to excuse mispractices with the rationalization that Things could always get worse. So you'd be there, along with a lot of other fearful Americans, excusing the internment of the Japanese because it was worse during the Civil War. Or at least we weren't like Hitler. Me? I tend to ask How could things get better?
That seems to me the right and the duty of all concerned American citizens. ------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you should be looking at direction (derivative) not a static picture. The direction is the wrong way, and mechanisms to control the rate of change (public opinion, judicial review, habeas corpus, etc) are being removed deliberately.

I disagree, I believe that such things happened more in the past and are generally in decline. Do you think a judge in the WWII period would reject war security measures as unconstitutional? Would the state police today stand in the school door to stop integration? I expect that most of the perception of greater excesses is due to the fact that, in the past, you never found out about the bad stuff that was done, whereas now every utterance and every act is either leaked, found out, or litigated and then blogged all over the world in minutes.

Quote:
Again, this is a systems problem, not a personal issue. I don't think the murderers have any better idea than you do- prolly less.

Please clarify what you mean by 'systems problem'. I am not sure whow you arrive at the conclusion that murder isn't a personal issue.

Quote:
Seems to me that if we're not a police state yet, we're heading in that direction.

As noted above, I disagree.

Quote:
And I suggested several possible solutions: Better training, job rotation, better lines of command...

I agree that this would probably be beneficial, noting that police today are already much better trained, both in the criminology and community relations aspects of their jobs, than in the past. Job rotation is an option in larger forces. If by 'lines of command' you mean calling upstairs every time a situation occurs, I don't think that's too practical.

Of course, all these things mean money.

Quote:
plus implied several others, like rescinding the Military Commissions Act

Fine with me. let's classify all the prisoners in Gitmo as lawful combatants. Then they can be kept as prisoners of war, under the Geneva Conventions, until the end of hostilities.

Quote:
and provisions of the Patriot Act,...

The courts are doing this even now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:34 PM

Quote:
I believe that such things happened more in the past and are generally in decline.

Things such as...? Numbers please?

Quote:
Do you think a judge in the WWII period would reject war security measures as unconstitutional?

I find it interesting that you have to reach all the way back to WWII to find a comparison. WWII! That was... uh... 60 years ago. And in some cases, you go ALL the way back to the Civil War- over 140 years ago! Don't you find it a bit indicative that you have to reach THAT far back... to times of civil and world war... to find comparisons? Does that not tell you how far the pendulum has swung?

Quote:
I expect that most of the perception of greater excesses is due to the fact that, in the past, you never found out about the bad stuff that was done, whereas now every utterance and every act is either leaked, found out, or litigated and then blogged all over the world in minutes.

Which is as it should be. The cops' biggest friend is the dashboard camera. At least in this case the technology to snoop is being used on some of those who might actually need it. The problem is that a lot of the other stuff need lots and lots of sunshine, and it's not getting it.

Quote:
If by 'lines of command' you mean calling upstairs every time a situation occurs, I don't think that's too practical.

I mean that orders are not issued by agencies (like the Secret Service or the NSA) to local police, because these agencies have different command structures, and different oversight. If the NSA or the Secret Service want to set up "Free Speech Zones or frisk everyone from here to NYC, let them do that with their own people. The local cops and their local governments have to face review boards and lawsuits, the Secret service does not. The alphabet agencies are in many ways politicizing local law enforcement and hanging them out to dry.

I'd still like to find out how much warrantless spying you find "acceptable".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"because the costs are seen as being too high if they dont"

And that's a primary fallacy. What the government is lacking is 'human intelligence'. But rather than try to beef up on it, the government (and by that I mean the administration which gives the orders) puts its entire population under technological surveillance .

Well good "Human intelligence" is another name for government informants. Would you rather be damned by local gossip or by something verifable? The design of the system "as Sig would say" favours increasingly intrusive surveilance and those conditions have always existed and always will no matter who is in the Whitehouse. The answer to it is to push back through legal means, which is what folks do now and what they will still be doing in 4 years even if there Democrat in the Whitehouse.

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:51 PM

Quote:
The design of the system "as Sig would say" favours increasingly intrusive surveilance and those conditions have always existed and always will no matter who is in the Whitehouse.

You are 100% self-contradictory. IF the design of the system favors "increasing surveillance" and that design flaw has been in place since forever only waiting for technology to unleash its potential, then we do NOT have a "stable" system with all the appropriate feedback, we have an unstable system. A system with design flaws that should be redesigned.

I'm telling ya Fletch, your only possible winning argument is "it's necessary".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The design of the system "as Sig would say" favours increasingly intrusive surveilance and those conditions have always existed and always will no matter who is in the Whitehouse.
You are 100% self-contradictory. IF the design of the system favors "increasing surveillance" and that design flaw has been in place since forever only waiting for technology to unleash its potential, then we do NOT have a "stable" system with all the appropriate feedback, we have an unstable system. A system with design flaws that should be redesigned.

I'm telling ya Fletch, your only possible winning argument is "it's necessary".

.

Ah! You think it's a flaw. It's not a flaw it's a consequence. Remember the buffer solution? You have an acid and a base in a solution that estabishes a buffered pH. As the amount of acidity in the solution increases, the solution becomes more base to compensate. To say they system is flawed is like saying that putting the acid in there was a mistake because the acid is too dangerous. However, if you remove the acid the resulting base solution is equally as dangerous. The nature of ballance is to counter the potentially destructive consequences of the system in order to still get the benefits.

As to the supposed inconsistancy. If we could use the wayback machine to give the CIA something like "Carnivore" in 1967 they would use it, that use would be countered and controlled through political feedback and the world would go on. You are looking at the current situation and extrapolating that it will only get worse when in fact the evidence is that public pressure will put things back in order. As others pointed out Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus and confiscated private guns in some areas (both unconstitutional) as I recall he created West Virginia when the rest of Virginia didn't agree with him. In WW2 Japanese Americans were interned. Now if you had stood in that place and time and extrapolated like you do you would imagine a black future. But in fact things returned to normal.

The correct response NOW is to get congress to actually perform oversight, to use the courts to curtail those powers that are unacceptable and control the ones that are. Then you have to be watchfull for the next cycle.

Throwing you hands in the air and screaming "police state" when it isn't is not on that list.

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, how "pervasive" is "pervasive" in your book? How many people unconnected with ANY sort of "terrorist" activity being spied on does it take to trip your threshold? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

Way to load a question, Siggy.

I doubt that many people who are unconnected in ANY way to terrorists, their supporters, their phone numbers or emails, their organizations, are 'spied upon' by having their phone numbers logged and conversations from overseas monitored. I have no doubt that most of these people don't support terrorism, but are just calling or being called by family, business associates, news sources, etc. who are linked to terrorist organizations. Lots of chaff is winnowed to get the few grains of terrorist wheat. Would I prefer that this didn't have to happen? Sure. Do I think it's probably necessary? Sure.

Everybody who is passing through a radar speed trap is also being 'spied upon' in a way. Only the speeders get stopped.

Quote:
Geezer: Now if you really want video cameras, try England. They got a bunch.

SignyM: And we should follow their example... why, exactly? Why stop there? How about Turkey? Or Myanmar?

Ah. Back to the old "putting words in other people's mouths" trick.

Rue seemed upset by video cameras. I suggested that England has more than here, implying that maybe that makes it more of a 'police state'. I also note that neither you nor Rue had any problem with the video cameras 'spying' on the events at Mr. Meyer's tazing episode.

Quote:
The difference between you and me Geezer? You tend to excuse mispractices with the rationalization that Things could always get worse. So you'd be there, along with a lot of other fearful Americans, excusing the internment of the Japanese because it was worse during the Civil War. Or at least we weren't like Hitler. Me? I tend to ask How could things get better?
That seems to me the right and the duty of all concerned American citizens.

Thanks for the analysis. Not surprisingly, I disagree. To me, many folks on this board, yourself included, tend to take any incident, extrapolate it to it's worst possible conclusion (regardless of likelihood) and then make it the "Most Important Thing" on which "Immediate Action", which you unilaterally determine, "Must Be Taken". You (inclusive) lack any sense of perspective, history, or understanding that others might sincerely hold differing opinions.

If you, SignyM, wanted to actually hold discourse on how to improve, say, the police, a topic name like "how can we improve the police?" would seem appropriate. Somehow "USA:Police State?" doesn't really have that 'how could things get better?' quality.

I will be around to swap insults or ideas as determined by consensus.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I find it interesting that you have to reach all the way back to WWII to find a comparison. WWII! That was... uh... 60 years ago. And in some cases, you go ALL the way back to the Civil War- over 140 years ago!

This is why it's pointless. Hell, YOU could come up with examples of judicial, governmental or police misconduct in the recent past which make current stuff look tame, but you don't want to discuss, just make points.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are still laws on the books that forbid driving your horse down Main Street on Sunday, or some such.
I don't know about where you live, but riding a horse down the street in my City makes no sense and would cause a substantial public disturbance and traffic problems (although, on Sunday there is less traffic). I think horse riding is a local issue and if you want your local horse laws gotten rid of fine, but don't try to make us conform with your crazy liberal horse policy.
Then you'll love the old law that went something like "should an automobile spook a horse, the automobile will be taken to a field and dismantled"

Edit: A bit more practically, the Amish still drive horse and buggy; there are many communities, even cities close to these Amish communities, where a horse drawn buggy is not an unusual sight. Point: there's a lot of diversity out there.

There’s a law near where I live that you can’t drive faster than 25 mph while passing a horse and buggy. I’m not sure how it’s worded, exactly but if you just pulled the law off the internet or something without bothering to check why it’s there, you might get the impression it’s a pointless law. Actually it’s not. There is a large community of Mennonites near here and they ride down the road on horse and buggy. And it’s enforced too. I got a ticket several years back because I whizzed past a horse and buggy. I wasn’t speeding only whizzing.

I end up with a ticket – the most expensive ticket I’ve ever had to pay. That was the last time I whizzed past a horse and buggy.

In a police state, the government would just round up all these useless Mennonites and through them in work camps after we make their religion illegal. In a liberal democracy we make laws that allow both societies to co-exist with as much freedom as possible.

Yes, there are a lot of useless laws in the US, most of them aren’t enforced or even known about by authorities to enforce – so they aren’t really impacting our freedom. Some of them are enforced and for good reason – so they aren’t really useless laws. But you have to be careful when you start using this to define a police state, because in a real police state the useless laws on the books might be something like “it’s illegal to be a Jew” – and it is enforced. . .with the death penalty.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:35 PM

Quote:
So, how "pervasive" is "pervasive" in your book? How many people unconnected with ANY sort of "terrorist" activity being spied on does it take to trip your threshold? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?- Signy

Way to load a question, Siggy.

Huh? The entire thrust of your argument is "not so much anymore". That DOES involve numbers, does it not? It seem the natural followup would be- how much is too much? I can't imagine why you would think it's a "loaded" question.

Quote:
I doubt that many people who are unconnected in ANY way to terrorists, their supporters, their phone numbers or emails, their organizations, are 'spied upon' by having their phone numbers logged and conversations from overseas monitored. I have no doubt that most of these people don't support terrorism, but are just calling or being called by family, business associates, news sources, etc. who are linked to terrorist organizations. Lots of chaff is winnowed to get the few grains of terrorist wheat. Would I prefer that this didn't have to happen? Sure. Do I think it's probably necessary? Sure.

What would you say if everyone who called overseas was monitored? Or if everyone who had a financial transaction over $10,000 was monitored? Or everyone who used a key context-sensitive phrase was monitored? Would that be "too much"?

Quote:
I find it interesting that you have to reach all the way back to WWII to find a comparison. WWII! That was... uh... 60 years ago. And in some cases, you go ALL the way back to the Civil War- over 140 years ago!- Signy

This is why it's pointless. Hell, YOU could come up with examples of judicial, governmental or police misconduct in the recent past which make current stuff look tame, but you don't want to discuss, just make points.- Geezer

First of all, you picked the samples not me. So you apparently shot your own self in the foot, rhetorically-speaking. But secondly, there really are some relatively new things going on...or at least things that haven't happened in many decades. Nixon, for all his faults, didn't eliminate habeas corpus, nor did he set up huge "detention centers", nor did he (to my knowledge) ship political opponents overseas for "questioning". There ARE historic benchmarks, as you so kindly cited.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:46 PM

Quote:
Ah! You think it's a flaw. It's not a flaw it's a consequence. Remember the buffer solution? You have an acid and a base in a solution that estabishes a buffered pH. As the amount of acidity in the solution increases, the solution becomes more base to compensate

Id stay away from chemistry examples if I were you. There IS such as think as "buffering capacity" which can be exceeded.

For people to become outraged about government intrusion or outright oppression, they have to know about it. How do you feel about leaks that reveal the existence of surveillance programs and outsourced torture?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:08 PM

Quote:
Thanks for the analysis. Not surprisingly, I disagree. To me, many folks on this board, yourself included, tend to take any incident, extrapolate it to it's worst possible conclusion (regardless of likelihood) and then make it the "Most Important Thing" on which "Immediate Action", which you unilaterally determine, "Must Be Taken". You (inclusive) lack any sense of perspective, history, or understanding that others might sincerely hold differing opinions.

I look at instances to see why and how they occurred. If it was a one-off situation, it can be handled by a one-time action. What I'm looking for is patterns. As I said before, there are few failures that occur w/o some sort of "upstream" failure. The only way to figure out how to keep it from occurring again is to figure out how it happened in the first place. Now, if we've been here and done that several times already, why is it occurring again? Obviously the first "fix" didn't "fix" the problem. Or the context is different and therefore the its a new situation and requires re-evaluation. It seems quite logical to me.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Ah! You think it's a flaw. It's not a flaw it's a consequence. Remember the buffer solution? You have an acid and a base in a solution that estabishes a buffered pH. As the amount of acidity in the solution increases, the solution becomes more base to compensate
Id stay away from chemistry examples if I were you. There IS such as think as "buffering capacity" which can be exceeded.

For people to become outraged about government intrusion or outright oppression, they have to know about it. How do you feel about leaks that reveal the existence of surveillance programs and outsourced torture?

.

Yes I did know that. Strangely enough they do teach chemistry in England (though admittedly it concentrated on blowing things up -- wont say any more you don't know who's listening

)

The point is that in the solution potentially destructive forces are balanced. What you are doing is holding up the beaker of solution and screaming "my God this has ACID in it" which is true but not the whole story.

As for leaks, despite what the Whitehouse says neither of the ones you mention really impact operations. As such I see no compelling reason why they should not be made public.

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:47 PM

Lets' see
1) ability to declare anyone an illegal combatant
2) suspension of all rights (including habeas corpus) for those so declared
3) tracking US-based money transfers if presumed done overseas
4) illegal pen-registers and trap-and-trace procedures on 35+ MILLION ordinary US citizens, and
5) actual illegal wiretaps without probable cause
6) assumption of authority to sneak and peak in private residences without probable cause ...
7) ... to investigate what BOOKs you take out from the library or buy, ...
8) ... to track your spending ...
9) ... your movements ...
10) ... and limit your ability to fly on a plane
11) to photograph and record you exercising your constitutionally protected right to peacefully assemble
12) to limit your right to peacefully assemble by restricting it to specific places and times and making all other assemblage illegal
13) to limit your right to privacy and against unreasonable search and seizure

Now this is just a start. There are many more restrictions on the rights of individuals in the political, economic, intellectual, and personal realms. And all this - leveled against US citizens as a group aided by supercomputers and corporate complicity - is not just 'same old same old'. In intensiveness and breadth it is aimed at bringing an entire population under political control.

Does past excess excuse current excess ? No. Does current excess excuse past excess ? No.

It doesn't matter if it's group by group, or wholesale.

"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group."

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

***************************************************************
the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nixon, for all his faults, didn't eliminate habeas corpus,

I don't recall captured Viet Cong being granted habeas corpus. Anyway, I'm all for converting the Gitmo folks to lawful combatants and POWs, who also have no right to habeas corpus.

Quote:
nor did he set up huge "detention centers",

No, because they'd already been set up in South Vietnam by previous administrations. tens of thousands of captured VC and NVA were being held.

Quote:
nor did he (to my knowledge) ship political opponents overseas for "questioning".

Political opponents? Did someone send Hillary overseas? As to possible terrorists, now...Nope. They were already there in Vietnam and didn't have to be shipped anywhere.

But let's talk more about Nixon. Watergate break-in, Pentagon papers, White House enemies list, secret war in Cambodia & Laos, supporter of anti-comunist dictators, 18.5 minute gap, Kent State shootings, forced to resign Nixon. You see, I knew you could come up with examples of worse misconduct in recent past administrations.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I look at instances to see why and how they occurred.

This might be a good point in which to re-ask a question you might have missed above.

"Please clarify what you mean by 'systems problem'. I am not sure whow you arrive at the conclusion that murder isn't a personal issue."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:57 PM

It would be less suspicious if you asked that question about how a systems approach works with the US being a police state rather than about murder - which was a mere example and not the focus of the discussion. Otherwise, it just looks like you're trying to derail the actual discussion. Not that's you'd ever do anything like that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 28, 2007 4:51 PM

Hello all,

I honestly don't think the people who created this thread really think that the US is currently a police state.

Rather, I think they notice that the US has been acquiring some traits of a police state. I think they also worry about the trend that they perceive.

Because police states rarely spring up overnight. When Castro took Cuba, the nation wasn't converted into a police state by the following Wednesday. The process emerged over time.

So the creators of this thread are merely saying, "Watch the trend."

And the people who disagree are saying, "There is no trend."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 4:52 PM

Hi AnthonyT

Thanks for the post. I don't have time for an extended discussion, but I wanted you to know I appreciate your post.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi AnthonyT

Thanks for the post. I don't have time for an extended discussion, but I wanted you to know I appreciate your post.

.... except when you say something I disagree with, then I'll call you an "idiot."

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 5:58 PM

I have no problems with disagreemnt. What I have problem with is off-topic snark, misdirection and other disruptive tactics - like yours.

I'll get back with you later on that. In a detailed, nit-picking way of course.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:07 PM

Or you could appologise to Anthony, takes just 3 little words. You have time for that right?

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

So the creators of this thread are merely saying, "Watch the trend."

And the people who disagree are saying, "There is no trend."

--Anthony

Then let's look at tends.

If you woke up in the 1863, saw Habeus Corpus revoked and private guns confuscated and then plotted the trend at that point you could infer that a police state was just around the corner. You would have been wrong.

If you woke up in 1943, saw thosands of Japanese Americans Interned, wartime restrictions on reporting etc you could imagine a police state just around the corner.... Didn't happen.

1953 and McCarthy witch hunts and blacklists.. nope.

1973, tricky Dicky, "plumbers" wiretaps and break ins? Again no.

In fact if you plot the long term trend you will see that things eventually rebound towards the neutral position. Nobody says that there is no trend, they just say that the long term trend goes against the idea of the current situation leading to a police state.

(note to Rue, I fudged the dates so they all end in a "3" for dramatic effect.)

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:37 PM

Quote:
If you woke up in the 1863, saw Habeus Corpus revoked and private guns confuscated and then plotted the trend at that point you could infer that a police state was just around the corner.

If I woke up in 1863 and saw habeas corups susended and private guns consfiscated, I would know I was in a "police state".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
If you woke up in the 1863, saw Habeus Corpus revoked and private guns confuscated and then plotted the trend at that point you could infer that a police state was just around the corner.
If I woke up in 1863 and saw habeas corups susended and private guns consfiscated, I would know I was in a "police state".
.

Except it passed things moved back to where they had been because that's what people want. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be vigilant, I'm saying that things return to normal because people are. We know, we can see and we also see that a lot of these changes are opposed by folks in both parties, by the courts and the majority of people. This is not a police state and it wont be in the hear future.

HERO

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Unfortunately, the United States cannot defeat Terror.

Well there you have it. Game over. Lower the flags folks, its now the United States of Americastan.

Or...maybe its the Union of Socialist Amerikan States.

No, its the National Socialist States of America.

...the Anglo-American Commonwealth. Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minster Bush? PN would LOVE that one, hell he thinks that's where he's living right now.

Truth is that we will sort it out and either we will kick ass or else suddenly folk, especially Muslim women folk, will take to the street tearing down walls and demanding Democracy and liberty. It beautiful either way.

We will win...its what we do. God Bless America. Unless the liberals keep trying to surrender like a brigade of French Special Forces. Then we'll still win, but it'll take longer.

H

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:22 PM

Fletch

Let me say right up front I don't see any reason to apologize to AnthonyT or anyone - do you ?

My first post ...

Quote:
"Hey Signy, I got a question for you.
Are you saying that there are a lot of people presently incarcerated that should not be or are you saying we should stop incarcerating people found guilty of crimes?"

It's about 1 in 8 wrongly convicted on death row, using DNA testing.

But drug use which accounts for the majority of incarcerations should be decriminalized.

MY answer is yes, there are a lot of people in jail who should not be there.

second post ...

Quote:
All the available 'arms' in the world are nothing compared to government's pervasive snooping, data-mining, video cameras - and people like Geezer who want to convince everyone that it's just SOP.

***************************************************************
SSHHHHHhhhh ... it's nothing ... go to sleep ... sleeep ... sleeeeeep ...

third post ....

Quote:
BTW - speaking of the federal government and the constitution -
there seems to be a swing to the position that only those rights that are specifically enumerated are protected, and then only from abuse by the federal government specifically. So, for example, if state, or national or international companies collect information on you, and the government buys it (seeing as it's for sale) and it's not about any criminal activity (not subject to probable cause) or about your (specifically protected) 'free' political speech - then it's not forbidden. That's the trend these days.

***************************************************************
Big Brother - he's making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty ..........

fourth post ...

Quote:
One of the new parts is the programs that look for context sensitive phrases, not just key words, on billions of conversations a day, not just on a few individuals. This isn't just J Edgar making a file on John Lennon. It puts everyone under scrutiny.

fifth post ...

Quote:
"because the costs are seen as being too high if they dont"

And that's a primary fallacy. What the government is lacking is 'human intelligence'. But rather than try to beef up on it, the government (and by that I mean the administration which gives the orders) puts its entire population under technological surveillance (or in the case of phone trap-and-trace and pen-registers, 35+ MILLION in the US). Now the chances of finding a particular and vital piece of information are nil. I guarantee, not one life will be saved. But the political effects - that's where you get your payback.

sixth post ...

Quote:
Lets' see
1) ability to declare anyone an illegal combatant
2) suspension of all rights (including habeas corpus) for those so declared
3) tracking US-based money transfers if presumed done overseas
4) illegal pen-registers and trap-and-trace procedures on 35+ MILLION ordinary US citizens, and
5) actual illegal wiretaps without probable cause
6) assumption of authority to sneak and peak in private residences without probable cause ...
7) ... to investigate what BOOKs you take out from the library or buy, ...
8) ... to track your spending ...
9) ... your movements ...
10) ... and limit your ability to fly on a plane
11) to photograph and record you exercising your constitutionally protected right to peacefully assemble
12) to limit your right to peacefully assemble by restricting it to specific places and times and making all other assemblage illegal
13) to limit your right to privacy and against unreasonable search and seizure

Now this is just a start. There are many more restrictions on the rights of individuals in the political, economic, intellectual, and personal realms. And all this - leveled against US citizens as a group aided by supercomputers and corporate complicity - is not just 'same old same old'. In intensiveness and breadth it is aimed at bringing an entire population under political control.

Does past excess excuse cur

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:34 PM

Quote:
This might be a good point in which to re-ask a question you might have missed above. "Please clarify what you mean by 'systems problem'.I am not sure whow you arrive at the conclusion that murder isn't a personal issue."

It's like obesity, or diabetes. You can think they are personally caused, and they are. But why does one country have a much higher rate than others? It's because the population as a whole is responding to something else.

So far, there seems to be a roughly constant 5% of the population who are born aggressive and with poor impulse control pretty much everywhere in the world. So why do SOME countries- such as ours- have such a phenomenally high murder rate, especially compared with our relative wealth, stability, and incarceration rate?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

Let me say right up front I don't see any reason to apologize to AnthonyT or anyone - do you ?

"

Actualy yes I do you won't because you can't it would mean you were w..ww..ww..wrong.

This thread

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30768#543535

Quote:
rue:

AnthonyT

You're a fucking idiot.

Quote:

Rue - Is there some reason you feel the need to insult me?

--Anthony

Quote:

Rue:
Because you're an idiot by choice ? And maybe if you get a mirror held up to you you'll make different choices ?

RUE

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:59 PM

Here was the start of the topic

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30610

SignyM:
AnthonyT- Track Geezer's posts for a while.

AnthonyT:
What, in particular, will I be looking for in Geezer's posts?

Clearly AnthonyT understands the meaning - to observe over time. Then chooses to misrepresent it later, even fosters that misrepresentation, and responds to it from others. Stands by while snark is heaped on others, then chooses to say

***************************************************************
don't tase ME bro !

SIGNYM

Friday, September 28, 2007 10:36 PM

Fletch2- It takes a stomach of iron to put up with the crap that some dish out. (YOU know who you are ) It would be nice if the people who whinge so loudly about how "unfairly" they're treated try to live up to the standards that they like to set... for others.

And now, for something on-topic:

Quote:
CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Robin Petrovic, a college English teacher, was out dancing at a popular Chicago nightclub, the "Funky Buddha Lounge," when she got into an altercation with the bouncer and called police for help. But according to Petrovic, the officer who showed up -- James Chevas, a 12-year veteran -- turned on her when she refused to sign a blank incident report and tried to write down his badge number.

"He picked me up and threw me face down into the ground. And since my hands were handcuffed behind my back, I couldn't break my fall at all, so I just landed on my face," she told CNN.

Petrovic is one of thousands of ordinary people who every year accuse Chicago police of abuse. Few complaints result in disciplinary action. Woman alleges police brutality »

"The Chicago Police Department doesn't do a good job of policing itself," Jon Loevy, Petrovic's attorney, said. "For the small minority of police officers, who are inclined to violence for whatever reason and abuses, there is no check, there is no deterrence, because the city does not investigate and punish police abuses."

Between 2002 and 2004, for example, more than 10,000 complaints -- many of them involving brutality and assault -- were filed against Chicago police officers. Yet only 18 of them resulted in any meaningful disciplinary action, according to Craig Futterman, a lawyer who uncovered these statistics while researching a client's claim.... For years, community activists have accused the Office of Professional Standards -- the investigative unit within the Chicago Police Department that examines brutality complaints -- of poor oversight.

{Mayor Daley said} "There is police brutality throughout the country. It's not just an exception to Chicago, and we take appropriate steps to thoroughly investigate it,"

After her run-in with Chevas outside the Funky Buddha Lounge, Petrovic filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Standards, claiming extensive injuries. "I had two black eyes. One of my ears was completely black and blue," she told CNN. "My face was swollen. I was bruised under my chin. I had bruising on my arms and my legs, lacerations all over my back, and bruising in my genital area." Chevas denied Petrovic's claims and said she attacked him. Petrovic was arrested that night and charged with aggravated battery, but the charges were later dropped.

In his 12 years with the Chicago Police Department, Chevas had never been disciplined, despite nearly 50 brutality complaints against him, according to Petrovic's lawyer. Chevas wound up resigning from the force after being caught on tape using credit cards stolen from a suspect in police custody. He was sentenced to 30 months probation. Six months after filing her complaint with the standards office, Petrovic received a letter saying the office had conducted a "thorough investigation" and determined her complaint was "unfounded." Now, Petrovic is suing Chevas and the city of Chicago over the incident.

Now this is just plain apolitical police brutality. The problem is that police departments essentially police themselves.

Yanno, as a regulatory agency we tried self-reporting a number of years ago. A check after four years found 90%+ non-compliance. Gee, whoulda thunk? The whole concept of the police "policing" themselves is a recipe for abuse. ALL police deparments should have a civilian review board where complaints go FIRST.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, September 28, 2007 11:58 PM

Damn, and folks call ME crazy!

I honestly don't think the topic at hand can be rationally discussed by most of the parties involved, especially when they can't agree on even the most basic terms and foundations of the discussion in the first place!

It's a worthwhile topic, and worthwhile discussion to have, but yanno, I just don't think it's gonna happen here.

Feel free to prove me wrong, however.

-F

ANTHONYT

Saturday, September 29, 2007 4:52 AM

Fletch,

I would only expect Rue to apologize if she was sorry for insulting me. It does not appear that she is.

That having been said, I am perfectly content to discuss topics with her in the future even though she hurt my feelings. You can't always choose your neighbors, but you do have to live with them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

MALBADINLATIN

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Turkey is in effect a police state. Due Process doesn't exist. Warrants are not needed for arrest, they are for trial but people get lost in the prison system upon arrest and sometimes spend 10 years there before being found.
Say, did you hear about the people who got "lost" in our prison system after 9-11? Due to (1) not being allowed a lawyer (2) the govt not making available a "prisoner's list" (3) prisoners being moved from prison to prison w/o notice, making it extremely difficult for their relatives or lawyers to find out if they were indeed in prison, much less keep up with them. And let's not forget the Military Commissions Act (2006) which could allow ANYONE to be declared an "enemy combatant" and to disappear into Gitmo or be shipped overseas for "questioning", then to be followed by a trial before a Military Tribunal in which the defense is not allowed to see the charges or the evidence?

That's true, Gitmo is pretty Police State Like, at the very least contrary to our civilian system of justice. America is damn lousy at treating the rest of the world as well as we do our own criminal citizens. But that's all part of being the world police.

HERO

Monday, October 1, 2007 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
That's true, Gitmo is pretty Police State Like

No more then any other Military Base/Prison. Most bases and prisons I've seen have alot of uniformed types with guns and some fairly serious rules to follow.

I suppose you prefer the prisons without guards and walls.

H

ANTHONYT

Monday, October 1, 2007 4:09 PM

I actually don't think it's the prison itself that rankles people. I think it's the lack of access to representation, the ability to be held without charge, things like that.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Monday, October 1, 2007 4:29 PM

Yanno Hero, for a lawyer who claims to lovo the USA you seem to know almost nothing about the Bill of Rights.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, October 1, 2007 4:35 PM

As far as Gitmo is concerned, they should just open up the cages and let the anilmals run free....run free around Cuba that is. I can't think of a better present for Castro than having a couple hundred "nice, religious boys" added to his population. It's the perfect solution.

HERO

Monday, October 1, 2007 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yanno Hero, for a lawyer who claims to lovo the USA you seem to know almost nothing about the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights? Funny, my Constitution keeps going after that.

Has this little thing called the 14th Amendment. That little one is what the Supeme Court deemed (a fairly long while AFTER the Bill of Rights was written) gave the Bill of Rights its real teeth. It says that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty (ie your Bill of Rights, express or implied), or property without Due Process of Law.

That means that you can hold a person, indefinately without charges so long as your deprivation of their liberty is accomponied by Due Process. In other words, they get a hearing, which they all did. They get an appeal, which a fair number of them are coming up this term. The govt. must show a compelling govt. interest in the deprivation of rights, the govt. has that whole 'war on terror argument'. The govt. must show that there policy is narrowly tailored to meet that need, hence the couple hundred million NOT in Gitmo. The govt. must show no viable alternative, no stateside prison can accomplish the duel purpose of extracting intellegence and isolating the most dangerous of prisoners.

Will the Court continue to buy the govt. arguments? Likely yes. The Court is traditionally tolerant of these things during times of crisis and turmoil and then rolls the govt. back in times of calm reflection.

And don't tell me the Bill of Rights does not apply cause these folks are not citizens and not on US soil...cause thats crap, there is a Constitutional distinction between a "Citizen" and a "person" and the 14th Amendment says all "persons" within US jurisdiction, which includes Army bases on foriegn soil.

H

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE