Are we living in a police state in the U.S.?

[RoseCity]

I found this clip deeply disturbing. A cop pepper sprays some young women who were basically just standing there behind a barrier.

Peaceful Protest Penned Like Animals - OCCUPY WALL STREET (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LaAEnB9owY&feature=player_embedded)

[Robodl95]

Some instances, but no, definitely not close to a true police state.

[SimsLover50]

No. The people in the US have more freedom than most countries.

[RoseCity]

Is it a joke? Don't you guys exaggerate? You live in a very developed and highly democratic country and you compare it to a police state? You have freedom of speech, press and personal laws. There are many countries in the world, where civilians are abused and deprived of their laws. People who take part in anti-governmental protests are being put to jail or killed in the Middle East. People are not persecuted for having different opinions. Europe is also a democratic place where peoples' rights are being respected. The only country in Europe I would call a police state is Belarus.

Do the police in your country have excessive power and cannot be held accountable for their actions? Is wiretapping without warrant legal? Are your rights eroding? - you might live in a police state.
No, ha ha, I was just kidding. And thanks for the lesson in what life is like here in the US of A - it's always good to hear from an expert.

[ElementMK]

And thanks for the lesson in what life is like here in the US of A - it's always good to hear from an expert.
http://i.eho.st/pj5okzuf.jpg

[Robodl95]

I have to agree with Wojtek, saying that the US is a police state is a huge exaggeration.

[RoseCity]

http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m561/Melinda1327/DwightSchrute1.jpg

[whiterider]

Wojtek and Rob are quite right - the US is absolutely not a police state. That doesn't mean that there are no violations of civil liberties, and it doesn't mean that the police always act appropriately. Yes, the US has a lot of problems, but I think you are missing a certain level of subtlety here.

A perfect state is one in which there is very little crime, and that which does occur is dealt with in a manner completely appropriate by the police, and is processed using perfect justice. Criminals are miraculously transformed, by the prison system, into valuable and contributing members of lawful society, then released. There are no security threats, from inside or outside the state, and so civil liberties are able to remain paramount. No restrictions on freedom of speech are ever even considered, because people always speak responsibly. No restrictions on movement, association or weapon ownership are ever required, because no-one ever does anything violent or otherwise detrimental to society as a whole. If there are protests, they are peaceful, the police are present but keep a respectful distance at all times because they know that nothing serious is going to happen, and they can take it pretty easy. The political system is made up of thoughtful and mature people who honestly debate political issues, each in the sincere opinion that their viewpoint is the one whose application will bring the greatest peace and prosperity to the state. The people carefully examine the candidates' opinions and vote based on a thoughtful appraisal of the pros and cons of each approach, and when elements within the government disagree, they work to achieve a sensible and efficient compromise which works for everyone. The government has a gigantic pot of leprechaun gold in the basement and therefore never has to neglect an issue, or take a cheap solution over a good one.

This state does not exist.


A modern democratic state is usually one in which crime is high. Crime is usually dealt with reasonably well by the police, but sometimes there are issues - either individual, or small groups of, police officers, who make awful judgement calls and act completely inappropriately and disproportionately, either in an individual situation or over the courses of their careers, or institutional culture problems which result in, for example, racial stereotyping - which has no place in police work. Sometimes the perpetrators of such abuses lose their jobs or are criminally prosecuted; sometimes they are quietly retired; sometimes they're allowed to get on with it. Courts do not hand down consistent sentences, despite endless guidelines telling them to, and miscarriages of justice are often ignored because to fix them would cost too much. The government spends much of its time desperately trying to balance security with liberty, and comes down heavily on the side of sacrificing liberties in the interest of ever heavier security measures, even though there's little evidence to suggest that those measures are actually justified or useful. Protests turn into riots, resulting in huge injury and damage to innocent parties, and to protesters who never intended any trouble but got swept up in it. The police respond by becoming paranoid, and making use of draconian tactics at the slightest hint of trouble, which of course aggravates protesters (rightly so), and makes trouble more likely to occur. When violence finally does break out, police commissioners say "Ha! We told you these draconian tactics were necessary".
The political system is woefully ineffective, and is defined by short-term priorities and point-scoring. No-one who gives a shit about finding the best course of action lasts long, because if you're not slinging mud, you're not getting votes. Almost all politicians spend their time either on petty bickering and testosterone-fuelled posing, or on meaningless, empty gestures and photo opportunities. The really successful ones do both. People vote based on fucking ridiculous criteria such as how their parents vote, what the latest huge scandal/triumph was, whether or not Candidate Jones has cheated on his wife lately, or, and this is increasingly looking to be the most popular option, how the blood spattered when they shot a chicken whilst dancing naked under the full moon last Wednesday.
The government is permanently broke, and always will be. It argues with itself about spending cuts in order to look good, while public services collapse and the public debt continues to skyrocket.

This state is mostly modelled on the US, though other western nations are afflicted with similar problems in a slightly different arrangement.


A police state is one in which there's not much crime, because the vast majority of criminals are arrested and never seen again. If they survive the treatment they receive from the police, they don't get a trial (so, hey, at least that's consistent, right?), and may not even be told what they are charged with. They are dumped in prisons which may be vastly overcrowded and only have food enough for about one fifth of the population - those who can't fight or steal starve - and left there to rot, indefinitely. If they're a really bad person, like for instance a person who wrote a political blog or ran a church, they may end up in solitary confinement, where inmates are often starved, tortured and raped by guards, until they die. Their families will probably not be informed that they are dead. The police do whatever they like, to whoever they like. Security threats aren't usually a big problem, since police states tend to be fairly isolationist, and that at least doesn't breed armed enemies; internal threats are dealt with by the aforementioned "justice" system. Nevertheless, liberties are severely restricted, either in the name of security or that of public morality. There is no such thing as freedom of speech, let alone freedom of the press - the most influential media are all state run, and the others tend to be either covertly owned by the state, or overtly controlled by the state by way of threats and heavy censorship. It's very, very difficult to get into most police states; and even more difficult to get out. People who are caught trying to leave may be shot on sight, or they may be committed to the aforementioned prison system. Curfews and total bans on public meetings are commonplace - that includes meetings in private places which are open to anyone. Bye-bye book club, unauthorised religious group, and Amnesty International meetings. There are no protests. Anyone who tries to protest is shot or imprisoned, so no-one bothers. This is also, incidentally, why they have less prisoners than the US... a combination of two factors: firstly that you have to be truly desperate to risk crossing the police in a police state, and secondly that prisoners' life expectancies drop dramatically as soon as they are arrested.
The political system consists of the government. Those who oppose the government are shot. There are either no elections, elections with only one candidate running who just so happens to be the same person who's held the spot for decades, or elections which are always rigged. Nobody really knows what the government are doing, or how the economy is working, because they don't have to publicise anything except new laws - and, really, even those can be implemented without any meaningful publicity. Not that it makes a difference, since knowing what is and isn't technically illegal doesn't tell you anything about what will or won't get you arrested.

A state fitting this archetype exactly would be pretty fucking terrible, and I don't know of an individual state to which this all applies. However, these are all very typical features of real police states.


Honestly, the US has serious problems, and if you want to protest and complain about them I certainly won't oppose that. But be honest about it. Speak out about problems that actually exist. Isn't it bad enough if police are using force on protesters without good reason? Why not take that up as your battlecry? Why pretend that it's even worse - is unprovoked police violence not bad enough for you? To say something so blatantly false as that the US is a police state destroys your credibility as a dissident and makes you sound ignorant and extremist.

#firstworldproblems

[Mistermook]

RoseCity would love to reply, but I've reported her to the Department of Agriculture and she'll soon be detained at an undisclosed location for re-education and chipping. Ask back in fifteen years, if she agrees to tell us which one of her family put her up to this nonsense.

Or at least that's what would happen if we actually lived in a police state, instead of having an enormously poor understanding of what that sort of thing actually means and why equating one with the other is almost offensively dumb. While we at it, why don't you just tell us how some guy who shot someone is "just like Hitler," or maybe how getting an unwarranted speeding ticket is "the worst example of racial injustice ever perpetrated on a black man ever" or something like that.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i...have to agree with this youtube commenter:

"Bad camera angle + unclear context + incomprehensible shouting = Poor video."
Tymun 2 hours ago

i cant even tell what the women are doing, and what the guy was doing in the beginning was definitely out of line (you can see him start to do that macho pre-fight shoving shit on one officer, who quickly ducks behind a second officer before the commander subdues him). if he had done that to anyone else, he wouldve gotten a punch to the face/a real brawl, and i think the police handled him professionally.

back on topic, though, no, the US is not a police state. far from it.
in a true police state, those women wouldve been rounded up, carted off, interrogated/abused, and then either booked or let go to lead traumatized lives... IF they were lucky. pepper spray is the least of it, and this topic sort of makes a joke out of true police states and their occupants' suffering.

as for the 'having more prisoners' bit... we also have very good forensic technology, very good detectives, outspoken witnesses and layer upon layer of people watching others to make sure theyre doing their damn job the way theyre supposed to. is it really that big of a mystery as to why we also have more prisoners?

[RoseCity]

@ SP - Here's one of the maced women's take on what happened. Also has her not so great video.
http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

I understand what you all are saying, except for Mistermook, but I don't agree. I haven't had a lot of time to write anything, but here goes -
A modern democratic state is usually one in which crime is high.
Is this supposed to explain the prison population in the U.S.? Because if you look at the prison populations of the world's 'democracies', the U.S. is on another planet from the others: 715 (another figure I saw was 743) per 100,000. Some of the others:
Japan, 54 per 100,000; France, 95 per 100,000; Australia, 112/100,000; Canada, 116/100,000; UK, 148/100,000. In the U.S. that works out to approximately 2,292,133 inmates, 841,000 of whom are African-American, even though they are around 12% of the population.
Is the huge prison population of the U.S. unremarkable? These people don't seem to think so. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TpFlOioXys)

A police state is one in which there's not much crime, because the vast majority of criminals are arrested and never seen again. If they survive the treatment they receive from the police, they don't get a trial (so, hey, at least that's consistent,
right?), and may not even be told what they are charged with. They are dumped in prisons which may be vastly overcrowded and only have food enough for about one fifth of the population - those who can't fight or steal starve - and left there to rot,
indefinitely. If they're a really bad person, like for instance a person who wrote a political blog or ran a church, they may end up in solitary confinement, where inmates are often starved, tortured and raped by guards, until they die. Their families will probably not be informed that they are dead. The police do whatever they like, to whoever they like. Security threats aren't usually a big problem, since police states tend to be fairly isolationist, and that at least doesn't breed armed enemies; internal threats are dealt with by the aforementioned "justice" system. Nevertheless, liberties are severely restricted, either in the name of security or that of public morality.

In July I read an article in New York magazine about C.M.U.s (Communication Management Units) where certain Muslim prisoners along with environmental and animal rights activists are being held and the story of one prisoner, Yassin Aref. Here is the link in case anyone is interested. Little Gitmo ( http://nymag.com/news/features/yassin-aref-2011-7/)
Excerpts:
"All inmates are kept under 24-hour surveillance in near complete isolation."
"An allegation that someone is somehow connected to terrorism, without evidence and without conviction [for terrorism], allows them to be treated in this whole different system of justice."
"Legal activists agree that restrictive rules can be applied to high-security prisoners, but many in the CMUs, they say, are low-security inmates. One Muslim man was placed in CMU for perjury while another was locked up, in part, for violating U.S. sanctions by donating to a charity abroad without a license."
It sounds like what you are describing for a police state, except that the torture is psychological. For physical torture, the U.S. has overseas helpers who will handle that. Is the difference that these particular violations are focused on Muslims and environmental activists?
Is police state the wrong terminology? I don't know what to call a place like this. Should I not care if the person being locked up is Muslim or Black because I am neither? This is the trend toward less and less civil rights.
Maybe you think that all this is okay because no system of government is perfect, but these are not random mistakes; they are government sanctioned. The US criticizes other countries for their human rights violations when it itself is a huge offender. If your opinion is that a secret prison here and an extraordinary rendition there is normal, then I will have to agree to disagree.
As far as the protests go, the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes the right of peaceable assembly. And the people who are protesting on Wall St were doing so peaceably. I see comments online like 'if you're at a protest, you have to expect to be maced, clubbed, kicked and randomly arrested.' And they aren't talking about rioting - they're talking about peaceful marches. Because that's what happens here in our land of freedom.

[whiterider]

No, high crime isn't supposed to explain the US prison population. Nor, in my opinion, do advanced policing techniques, as SuicidiaParasidia suggested: I would say the main causes of the ridiculously high prison population in the US are draconian drug laws; lack of effective social security leading to more people being pushed into crime to survive; and the vicious cycle of high crime neighbourhoods bringing up kids who are more likely to commit crimes as adults. These are signs of a state with a fucked up society and a small number of overly heavy-handed laws - which have a disproportionate effect.

Certainly, the US government's behaviour towards "terror suspects" is reprehensible. Those techniques are very much like those employed by a police state, except in that the US targets them - inappropriately, in a discriminatory manner, and completely contrary to the law; whereas in a police state, you would never say "Should I not care if the person being locked up is Muslim or Black because I am neither?", because the wrongs of a police state are all-pervasive - simply by being there, you would be one of those at a not insignificant risk of being locked up without charge and tortured.

Police state is definitely the wrong terminology, yes. I'm not sure there's a single word for what you're trying to describe. However, you won't get any argument on the point of it being wrong.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

@ SP - Here's one of the maced women's take on what happened. Also has her not so great video.
http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php


okay, well, combining that video with the one you mentioned previously, ive come to conclude that shes at least exaggerating her claims a bit.
the black man in her video (not shown in the first) was clearly not "tackled" to the floor by 5 officers. you can see he's been pushed to his knees, and not even hard enough to smack his head against the pavement, just enough to subdue him. i also do not see him being abused after his hands are secured behind his back.
the second guy i also already saw as having been very much invasive of a police officers personal space, shouting in their face and doing the pre-fight shove macho posturing BS. maybe the "white shirt" used a bit more force on him, but he has no idea how this person who is already so willing to violate an officers' boundaries is going to react to a hand on his shoulder or something. better to be safe than sorry, especially when mob mentality is rampant and things can get violent in an instant.
i also see absolutely no clear evidence of a "billy club" to the stomach. the officer seems to have simply snatched him into a headlock type maneuver, used it to throw the person off balance, and gone from there.
im willing to bet that the second man ended up on the floor because he was considerably more 'lively' than the first. after all, the black man simply attempted to run off, he wasnt up in the officers faces or picking a fight. it makes sense to me.
in her video, i can also see what seems to be some sort of shoving tussle before the macing. maybe that was what gave the officer the impression to take harsher measures. youll also notice how very quickly that shoving area cleared up after the macing. that mightve been a bit drastic, but if someone were that interested in cooperating with the police, i wouldve thought that they wouldnt be trying to negotiate the barrier. that was definitely "something", and the writer failed to mention it, and her recording failed to accurately capture the events directly prior to the macing, so really she couldve inserted anything herself. just because she was there, doesnt mean she cannot lie about what happened.

skewed, at best.
we also have yet to see how the crowd was behaving pre-"corral".

[RoseCity]

okay, well, combining that video with the one you mentioned previously, ive come to conclude that shes at least exaggerating her claims a bit.
the black man in her video (not shown in the first) was clearly not "tackled" to the floor by 5 officers. you can see he's been pushed to his knees, and not even hard enough to smack his head against the pavement, just enough to subdue him. i also do not see him being abused after his hands are secured behind his back.
the second guy i also already saw as having been very much invasive of a police officers personal space, shouting in their face and doing the pre-fight shove macho posturing BS. maybe the "white shirt" used a bit more force on him, but he has no idea how this person who is already so willing to violate an officers' boundaries is going to react to a hand on his shoulder or something. better to be safe than sorry, especially when mob mentality is rampant and things can get violent in an instant.
i also see absolutely no clear evidence of a "billy club" to the stomach. the officer seems to have simply snatched him into a headlock type maneuver, used it to throw the person off balance, and gone from there.
im willing to bet that the second man ended up on the floor because he was considerably more 'lively' than the first. after all, the black man simply attempted to run off, he wasnt up in the officers faces or picking a fight. it makes sense to me.
in her video, i can also see what seems to be some sort of shoving tussle before the macing. maybe that was what gave the officer the impression to take harsher measures. youll also notice how very quickly that shoving area cleared up after the macing. that mightve been a bit drastic, but if someone were that interested in cooperating with the police, i wouldve thought that they wouldnt be trying to negotiate the barrier. that was definitely "something", and the writer failed to mention it, and her recording failed to accurately capture the events directly prior to the macing, so really she couldve inserted anything herself. just because she was there, doesnt mean she cannot lie about what happened.

skewed, at best.
we also have yet to see how the crowd was behaving pre-"corral".

Pre-corral they were marching - I think there's no video because nothing remarkable was happening. As you say, we don't know.
I thought Jeanne Mansfield's account was restrained and well thought out.
The 'shoving tussle' you mention happened because one of the white shirt policemen grabbed that woman by her hair and tried to remove it from her head. I couldn't see what the black man did, but the author of the piece said that he wouldn't get up against the wall of the building. I think what is pissing the white shirts off is that some of the marchers are shrieking 'shame, shame'. Even if it was illegal to shriek (maybe it is, I'm not sure) is grabbing a random person by the hair or macing some random women when they're kettled on the sidewalk a professional act? To me it looks like the acts of people who know they can do whatever they want.

[BlakeS5678]

http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m561/Melinda1327/DwightSchrute1.jpg

Well, to be fair in some countries they don't have prisoners because instead they fataly torture them. :(
(No specific country.)

[RoseCity]

Well, to be fair in some countries they don't have prisoners because instead they fatally torture them. :(
(No specific country.)

Yeah, I realize that - I was comparing the US to the other democracies. Let me be fair - 'Yay, we don't fatally torture people in the U.S. and when we want to torture people we send them to another country to have it done.'

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/20/naomi-wolf-arrested-at-ows-event-for-violating-terms-of-an-imaginary-law.html

[BlakeS5678]

Quote; "Let me be fair - 'Yay, we don't fatally torture people in the U.S. and when we want to torture people we send them to another country to have it done."

Um, when did we start doing that?!:wtf:

[whiterider]

Well, the Bamaca case in which the US supreme court first ruled that torture carried out by US agents abroad was not a breach of the 5th Amendment was in 1999; that addressed an event which happened in 1992, involving the torture to death of a man in Guatemala. Guantanamo (which is of course in Cuba) was first used for torture in 2002. British man Moazzam Begg was famously tortured between 2002-2005, with the last two years of that time spent under US guard in Guantanamo. Torture and rape of prisoners by US troops in Abu Ghraib came to light in 2004.

However, the practise of US agents either deporting suspects or capturing them abroad for the purpose of torture can be traced back to the Cold War. Perhaps it happened before then too, but if so, I'm not aware of any reliable sources to demonstrate such.


(It is worth mentioning, of course, that the US is not the only western nation involved in torture, although it does seem that the others mostly borrow the US's facilities.)

[BlakeS5678]

To the above post; :faceslap: :wtf: :!!: :alarm: :(
That's the only way to put it for me.

[Miko09]

Yea...that screaming chick was totally over exaggerating. Police do not carry pepper spray that strong to a protest. To see more silly Occupy Wall Street silliness, peep this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyyDjHy4S7Y. The guy in the video deliberately stuck him foot underneath the scooter to put on a show. That's the reason the cop just off at the end. I believe that there really needs to be an economical change and that there are people who actually know what they are doing on Occupy Wall Street, but there are also too many out-of-season actors on OWC trying to catch their next big break.

[paksetti]

In a city that large with so many other things fighting for the attention of passersby, you need something to grab attention. It seems like there are too many people there to put on a show and not enough there with an actual message.


(that's not to say you should fake police brutality, btw)

[DrowningFishy]

If America was a police state illegal immigrants would be getting zero assitance and in matter of fact they'd be afraid to cross the border. Our murders would not get out of jail after only a 10+ years, there wouldn't be no question to the death penelty. While some things may look like we are headed that way we are not. Though we maybe sued, or shunned we still have the right to communicate how we want without risk of being locked up. We are free to feel how we want politically without fear of back lash from the goverment. We are allowed to speak about our displeasure with the goverment.

[police state
n.
A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
n.. police state - a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)
dictatorship, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, absolutism - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
((from thefreedictionary.com))]

Just don't mistake stupid peoples stupid actions for things they are not. Not saying it could never happen, I am just saying where not there yet.

[smorbie1]

I think we are not there, but are moving in that direction. Today I read a quote from Obama that he was going to start doing as much as possible without congress, just by signing Executive Orders. I don't know what you want to call that, but it's not representative democracy.

[whiterider]

I call it pragmatism. The American political system is drowning in its own idiotic dedication to party politics, with each side blocking anything supported by the other just because it's supported by the other side, and in the meantime the economy is going to shit and people are being made homeless and hungry. Clearly, Congress isn't interested in doing anything even remotely useful at this moment in time.

Executive powers exist for a reason, and that reason is that Congress doesn't need to be asked to sign off on every little thing. Now, if Obama's use of these executive powers prompts a general feeling that the executive powers which exist are too wide, then that can be changed (although I'm sure Congress would prevaricate about that until kingdom come too). If Obama's use of those powers is judged to be wrong or lacking, he won't be re-elected. But unless and until that happens, more power Obama. If Congress won't let him do his job, he absolutely should tell them to get fucked, especially when there are lives on the line.

[smorbie1]

I don't have the article link or I would send it to you. But it is things that should go through Congress. He has previously said that he was very tempted to do things on his own and not wait for Congress to act.
While I am truly not a fan of political parties which more than often enjoy politics as a game and do try to block things from going through or bullies other members into passing laws they want (for their own gain), I am less a fan of any unilateral action taken by one person. That holds even if the person is the president. To hear him say that he was just going to start making laws on his own without ANY oversight, Congressional or from the Supreme Court, chills me to the bone.

[J_Fanning]

I have not read all of the opinions given above, and I will tonight. But I just want to say that no matter what fault you may find in the USA, it is still the best place on earth to live, and I thank the Lord I live here.

[whiterider]

Ah, he won't be doing that, though, smorbie. The executive powers are rather carefully delineated, and the administration has no doubt had very talented lawyers working for some time on deciding what exactly can be fit into the mould of executive powers. Use of the powers of interpretation is infinitely preferable to outright illegal action, since the former is blameless, the latter would lead to immediate indictment, and both can achieve many of the things Obama wants to do.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the executive does not consist of the President alone. :) It's not like Obama can wake up in the morning with a great idea and sign off on it by teatime - there are checks and balances within the executive itself, not to mention suitable levels of bureaucracy. Of course that doesn't mean that the executive arm should function alone, without the influence of the judiciary and the legislature, but such a situation isn't Instant Tyranny. After all, it's functionally identical to an administration whose party controls Congress.

[LadyGreenEyes649]

No, the United States is NOT a police state. To make such an assumption, based on the quite biased opinions of people participating in an illegal movement is beyond ridiculous. The OWS people are NOT protesting lawfully. :awful protest means assembling peacefully, obeying the laws, and stating your opinions. That's all fine and good. Illegally taking over parks and other public areas, drugs and fornication on the streets, sexual assaults, robberies, and a seriously insane mount of littering, on the other hand, are NOT peaceful protest. I have lost count of the videos I have seen showing violence and crimes, and the various news stories, from many major news sources, reporting more crimes, more arrests, more garbage, etc. Hundreds of arrests, and most were for very valid, legal reasons. I read about the actions taken by police in Oakland, where they had to use tear gas. Why? because there were several serious crimes - a sexual assault, a beating, a fire, and these OWS people would not even allow paramedics to enter the area. They blocked sanitation crews in New York. Personally, I believe that one goal of this movement is to try and turn people from authority, and encourage anarchy.

Not saying no cop has ever been out of line, because they are just people, and some will make mistakes, but that is a far cry from a police state. Let this madness continue, though, with enough violence, and some might call for martial law, them we would have a police state. As for that, I think that is another planned goal. Yes, planned. Why? To stop the next big election. Yeah, totally expect strong reactions to that comment. Just ask for data, not pointless attacks.

[ElementMK]

Illegally taking over parks and other public areas, drugs and fornication on the streets, sexual assaults, robberies, and a seriously insane mount of littering, on the other hand, are NOT peaceful protest.Please back up these claims regarding OWS.

[Oaktree]

Doesn't it strike you as silly that a protest would go through government channels to determine where and when it can happen? The point of a protest is to let the government know of your displeasure about something. Going through government channels is like asking for permission to speak, and having the strength of your protest limited to whatever extent the body you are complaining to decides. It guts the entire concept.

[RoseCity]

Doesn't it strike you as silly that a protest would go through government channels to determine where and when it can happen? The point of a protest is to let the government know of your displeasure about something. Going through government channels is like asking for permission to speak, and having the strength of your protest limited to whatever extent the body you are complaining to decides. It guts the entire concept.

Yes, if you want to express your disagreement with the government, you could carry a sign to a place where the president is speaking and hold it up. And then you would be escorted to a 'free speech zone' far away and permitted to hold it up to your heart's content(or arrested if you won't leave). But if your sign said 'You're great, Mr President', you could stay. I think that's another example where things head to the police state side of the spectrum - protest signs aren't banned because we have first amendment rights, but, depending on what it says on the sign, you can only hold it up in certain places.
The free speech zones are 'legal', however, because of court rulings 'stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression'(read that on wikipedia). In the case of OWS, I think they're protected by the fact that Zuccotti Park is privately-owned and open 24 hours.

[Volvenom]

I must say Italy takes the cake, as we say here. Berlusconi is nothing but corrupt and abusive, owns most of the media, probably has mafia connections, is rude and bancrupt. I mean honestly! Has Napels mananged to clean up the garbage yet? I don't even remember why they woundn't pick up all the garbage? Oh was it some waste deposit or storage they couldn't agree on?

US has no record there either. Greece is really bancrupt but they don't wanna pay their taxes? Last thing I heard things was better in Iceland, probably because they managed to rub off the pain, and get on with it. Lots of stuff is not good in the US, but you don't have the record.

Doesn't it strike you as silly that a protest would go through government channels to determine where and when it can happen? The point of a protest is to let the government know of your displeasure about something. Going through government channels is like asking for permission to speak, and having the strength of your protest limited to whatever extent the body you are complaining to decides. It guts the entire concept.

You couldn't do that in Belarus haha! If you asked about that in Italy, Berlusconi would probably tell you no. Just the fact that they do, says it all.

Here in Norway we're still quite safe. There was an african immigrant, he had lived in Norway for a few years. He was sitting on the train counting his money, absolutely godsmacked fellow travellers reported him to the police. It was later cleared up, he was gonna buy something and the money was legitimate. I can just see what happened if he did that in Africa.

Btw: if I'm not totally mistaken. Any protest in Norway would have to be cleared with the police, because they would like to know if they need more manpower, and what troubles can be expected.

[Synthesis]

No, I don't think so.

I was born in a capitalist police state, which I was lucky enough came to an official end with 40 years of martial law and military rule shortly afterwards. I say "officially", because I still vividly remember, and can occasionally see, mass arrests, protesters being beaten by police with tear gas, military forces on alert, etc.

Now, some of that is happening now--but you've got a way before you actually enter "police state" territory. It can be subtle, so it may be a cause for concern, but are you at that point? I don't think so.

On the other hand, I think democratic elections are genuinely more meaningful in my country than in the United States, largely because, when elections are subverted (as happens in democracy), there are other ways for the masses to exert their will on government and on the nation as a whole (usually involving arrests and long sentences for prior leadership). Brutal, but meaningful. American politics are still comparatively polite by comparison, something worth appreciating (though I wouldn't want it in my homeland personally).

[Drakesecaravdis]

no but in my city I swear the police do not act right. they abuse their sirens just so they can make a red light too often
and they just don't care. I can't stand them. I swear I could be a better policeman than them except for the fact you could die in that job

the US is lucky but police don't act like a representative of the community like they should (at least in my city)
this may be just one city but the fact they can get away with this uncaring behavior makes me wonder if we are close to that happening.

I guess at least they're better than New York though. they were a bunch of idiots down there

[Christine11778]

I call it pragmatism. The American political system is drowning in its own idiotic dedication to party politics, with each side blocking anything supported by the other just because it's supported by the other side, and in the meantime the economy is going to shit and people are being made homeless and hungry. Clearly, Congress isn't interested in doing anything even remotely useful at this moment in time.

I think you hit the nail on the head, American politics has turned into a two party system that is much like a sporting event, no matter how much your "team" sucks you are loyal none the less. Logic and reason has long since flown out the window. :faceslap:

[Drakesecaravdis]

I think you hit the nail on the head, American politics has turned into a two party system that is much like a sporting event, no matter how much your "team" sucks you are loyal none the less. Logic and reason has long since flown out the window. :faceslap:
isn't it awesome I hate politics then?

I voted in the election and I wouldn't change my vote but the only reason is because of the lesser of two evils (not that Obama is evil, he's just not right for the job)

of course logic and reason has flown out the window because nothing about politics is logical/reasonable. you either got a candidate that doesn't care or one that just doesn't plain know what he's doing.
if you wanted to have any chance of finding a decent president, you'd have to look in history because none of them in my lifetime were suited for the job.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I have to agree with Wojtek, saying that the US is a police state is a huge exaggeration.

Boy, you either have no idea what you're not being told or you've never bothered to look into it. Police have been holding Occupy protesters in cages on buses, denying them food, bathroom breaks, or necessary medical treatment. They emptied cans of pepper spray on college students to the point where they claimed they couldn't sleep for days, unable to stop the agonizing burning. They prioritize protesters and marijuana smokers above rapists and murderers. Not even getting into the racial profiling that is spread across the entire country.

It may not always involve physical violence, but the police here are torturing citizens and getting away with it. If you don't think that's even close to a police state, then I don't know what is.

[Mistermook]

Boy, you really don't know what real police state looks like, do you?

[RoseCity]

I should have called this thread 'Is the U.S. heading for totalitarianism or is it already there?' I made a mistake.
Will every police state look the same? Do you have to wait until you're completely in the shit before you can even discuss it? Except you won't be able to discuss it then. I tried to present some facts in my posts since this is the Debate Room. Wish the people who 'disagree' would do the same.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Boy, you really don't know what real police state looks like, do you?

I said "close to", genius. I'm aware of the severity of a full police state. My point is there's a lot of sugar coating and a lack of information in this country about how people are really treated when they challenge the establishment. The police have made it clear that anything short of absolute obedience is met with sadistic violence and being locked in a cage like a dog. Left to starve or deteriorate at the hands of whatever conditions you may have.

You types can condescend all you want about how there are worse places, and of course there are, but that's no justification. And I don't mean to make my police bashing America-centric. It's all over the world. My point is it's worse here than people let on purely because their minds are saturated in this stupid american dream nonsense where 'none o those horrible things could possibly happen in the good ol u s of a!'

Just to make my point, consider this. After Occupy Wallstreet alone, America dropped 27 places in the press freedom rankings. (Regarding how free the press is to get into a situation, gather information, and release it to the public.) America is now tied in 47th with Romania and Argentina. Imagine what kinds of things are among those they so desperately don't want us to know about. That caused them to tear our freedom of information down a whole 27 places.
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/25/reporters_without_borders_press_freedom_index_slams_us_for_occupy_wall_street_arrests.html

[Mistermook]

You don't know what "close" means either, apparently.

America dropped in free press ratings established by an organization based in Paris? STOP THE PRESSES! My goodness, I thought the French were universal in their admiration and adoration of America's government! How could they not be in love with us, since we claim credit for their continued existence, willfully marginalized their political presence during the Cold War, engage in idiot grandstanding over their food, and make fun of their cinema?

Fuck, If I were French I'd look at any opportunity to stick it to America I got. America is a complete bastard to the French, both the government and to their people.

I'm not suggesting that America should be without criticism, but that civil discussions on such things should be rational, and based on the issues in question rather than bombastic crap and narrow comparisons that ignore relevant data. For instance, the relevant data that many of us are having this discussion on the alleged police state of the US from inside the US, making use of free speech from wherever we like because we're allowed freedom of movement about the country. I could even assemble an impromptu group of people an gather in a public place to have this discussion without fear of being prosecuted.

That's not to say that if I were a young black man, assembling with other young black men, that I'd enjoy the same freedoms. I would not. That's an issue though, not a universal failure. Similarly, assembling for days and weeks in central economic districts is something I support, but I can understand how the authorities would be under significant pressures to control that assembly just as much as I'd understand them having even less consideration for limiting the assembly powers of say...Neo-Nazis. I support the rights of Neo-Nazis to assemble as much as I do my own, but if Neo-Nazis were the Occupy Movement they'd have gotten even less time and sympathy for their protest. You can say, "But they're not Neo-Nazis!" and you'd be correct, but from a freedom-based standpoint they're exactly the same assembly.

But we let Neo-Nazis hang out still, and we allow Occupy protests too, if not always in the places where those protesters of either flavor would care to assemble. You can't also protest on the bomb range, or on the grounds of the White House lawn either. Because the right to protest isn't a universal right anymore than any other sort of free speech, and denying that such speech exists at all, or is hampered without that universal right, ignores certain logical realities of an orderly society. I don't want Neo-Nazis taking over the streets for weeks, and even sympathizing with their cause neither do I care for Occupy protesters to do so.

Do I deny that cops are poorly trained thugs? Nope. In a Police State though, being a thug is more than an indication of lack of oversight and prosecution of misdeeds. It's not a symptom of a social problem like the wealth-income gap the Occupy protesters are trying to engage the public over, it's a government mandate, a policy. The Civil Rights Movement had police state issues in Alabama, for instance - cured by Federal involvement. I'm not seeing a general trend towards a policy of cracking down on the public though, I'm seeing a conservative backlash. The general trends, no matter how reactionary the temporary actions, are still progressive. We're not "slipping into a police state," rather we're in a state of continual vigilance and action against such things. This discussion is not the exception, it's an indication of health.

[RoseCity]

You don't know what "close" means either, apparently.

But we let Neo-Nazis hang out still, and we allow Occupy protests too, if not always in the places where those protesters of either flavor would care to assemble. You can't also protest on the bomb range, or on the grounds of the White House lawn either. Because the right to protest isn't a universal right anymore than any other sort of free speech, and denying that such speech exists at all, or is hampered without that universal right, ignores certain logical realities of an orderly society. I don't want Neo-Nazis taking over the streets for weeks, and even sympathizing with their cause neither do I care for Occupy protesters to do so.

Do I deny that cops are poorly trained thugs? Nope. In a Police State though, being a thug is more than an indication of lack of oversight and prosecution of misdeeds. It's not a symptom of a social problem like the wealth-income gap the Occupy protesters are trying to engage the public over, it's a government mandate, a policy. The Civil Rights Movement had police state issues in Alabama, for instance - cured by Federal involvement. I'm not seeing a general trend towards a policy of cracking down on the public though, I'm seeing a conservative backlash. The general trends, no matter how reactionary the temporary actions, are still progressive. We're not "slipping into a police state," rather we're in a state of continual vigilance and action against such things. This discussion is not the exception, it's an indication of health.

I'm not seeing the progressive trends you mention, whatever they are. Which is not to say they don't exist. I see a continual chipping away of rights and maybe it doesn't seem like that big a problem because the abuses are mostly happening to African Americans or Muslims, but those rights are the things that stand between us and a police state or fascism or totalitarianism.
And re the Federal government as a counterbalance to state or local level abuse, President Obama re-signed the Patriot Act without the promised revisions. He signed the National Defense Authorization Act with the clause still in it about indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or representation, even when he said he wouldn't. I thought back in 2008 that his election was a swing of the pendulum back toward the center after the abuses of the Bush years, but it seems I was wrong. The thuggery is on the federal level as well.

[Oaktree]

I agree that the government is continually chipping away at rights. This past year seems to me to be a lot worse than it has been previously - though that could be because I've been keeping more informed - but our government is growing, and the growth of a body that monopolizes the use of force to uphold whatever arbitrary rules it sees fit is infringing on individual rights and freedoms and, while not necessarily as bad as a totalitarian state, is still unjust.

[crocobaura]

Not saying no cop has ever been out of line, because they are just people, and some will make mistakes, but that is a far cry from a police state.

Lol. Just because you have a better life style than citizens of North Coreea doesn't mean you're not living in a police state. I heard people get suspicious of you if you pay more than 100 dollars in cash at the shops in the US. That's typical of police states, to make it's citizens doubt each other and inform the government authorities, so the government knows everything and anything about everyone.

[Mistermook]

I'm not seeing the progressive trends you mention, whatever they are.
You're not? Well you're enjoying them anyways. The Civil Rights Movement and Desegregation, Roe V. Wade, Don't Ask Don't Tell's transformation into "Whatever You Like," the transformation from a conscripted militia to an all volunteer army, the vastly expanded citizen access to media and global communication through the internet...

You don't even notice these things, you simply enjoy the fruits of all of this and the country has been trending towards this progressive normal since before you were born. And really, while every generation faces hard conversations and legal challenges from the reactionary and the conservative, in the end progress wins because, simply, we are troubled by reactionary and conservative backlash. Women and Blacks can vote. Homosexuals can serve openly. We're having this conversation. We know about Guantanamo instead of their being unknown Filipino concentration camps... We have access and enumerable freedoms.

What we don't have is perfect freedom, or perfect government. That's unfortunate, but it's a far cry from ignoring what we do have and what we have accomplished in exchange for moping about and lying to ourselves claiming that we've won no victories. It's just as bad as claiming that our victories against our self-oppression excuse ourselves from the things we continue to fail at, whether by misdeed, maliciousness, or accident.

But whatever our failures are, essentially reactionaries exist because they're losing in the larger context. Conservatives are often most angry because they rightfully see themselves as ultimately irrelevant, that today's conservatives would be hopelessly progressive in time's past. They're not a true obstacle to our perfect society, they're speed bumps.

[Oaktree]

I would argue that those trends are less a product of our government and more a product of our society. If the government tries to put laws in place that the majority are strongly opposed to, people will simply continue to break those laws and it will be difficult to enforce those laws when a lot of people are doing it. Sort of like the issue with prosecuting polygamy in Utah. They can't do it because there are so many people practicing polygamy that the jails would fill and the cost to the state would be astronomical. If people didn't accept that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on race, sex, or sexual orientation, they would continue to do so, regardless of whether there are laws against it. Social progress must be organic, or else it ends in revolt.

The expanded access to media and communication is largely due to the internet, which, while supported by government, has largely been developed into what it is by private innovation and collective (non-governmental) action. The increased access to media and communication is because people care about those things, and so those things were developed to cater to peoples' interests.

I do agree that the reactionary elements of society are bad, but not enough to stop progress. I think, based on historic trends, that humans tend toward moral evolution. As we become more educated and aware of others and as more great thinkers come along, we realize that some of our past actions and viewpoints were indefensible. Enough people can see the logic in why those perspectives were indefensible that our society moves forward. Granted, there are times when society falls back (ex. Iran), but this is often due to temporary success on the part of the more reactionary elements in censoring the more progressive elements.

[Mistermook]

I'd agree that they were more a product of our society than government, but I think it's still very clear that government still responds to people. Maybe not as much as we'd want it to, or as fast as we'd want it to, or even the people we want it to respond to. It's not some star chamber of government without input from the rest of us though. We don't have to place bombs on street corners to get the people in power to pay attention to us. You're just saying that the government is responsive to society, rather than the other way around. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that things are working more or less the way they're supposed to, with some exceptions because politicians aren't exactly notable for their genius in every aspect of governance. Those that are, those are the folks you really have to watch out for because those are the sorts that set up police states, because they can.

I'm still not saying we don't have a right to be angry about things that are wrong with our government, we have the obligation to be angry about the wrong things. Government doesn't and shouldn't exist in a vacuum, it shouldn't be static, it should continuously be shaped by the individuals who invest in it. And as long as that change and investment is happening, however slowly, with however many missteps, I'm ok with saying things will probably be alright... But check in with me later if by some weird nightmare someone like Santorum wins the Presidential election. I'll be in my little raft paddling for the freedoms of Cuba...

[CmarNYC]

We have a lot of problems here in the US, very true. We have individual police who step way over the line, we have many very questionable laws, we have a lot of institutionalized bigotry and abuses of freedom.

But MisterMook is right - claiming our rights are being chipped away shows an ignorance of history. Not that I blame you exactly; I was in college there was Kent State and I vividly remember the feeling that now the goverment was out to not only suppress us but kill us. When I was a child blacks were beaten and killed in the South with the police and courts looking the other way. Go back a little and it was legal for men to rape their wives, it was routine for the cops to raid gay bars and arrest everyone in sight simply for being there, the government legally imprisoned US citizens in internment camps simply because they were of Japanese descent, and 'scientists' legally performed dangerous and harmful experiments on poor black men without information or consent. Yes, we have tons of problems but in the long term things have improved and will continue to improve.

So, no, not even close. If this was a police state you wouldn't have dared to start this thread for fear someone would report you and you'd be tossed in jail and never heard from again.

[RoseCity]

You're not? Well you're enjoying them anyways. The Civil Rights Movement and Desegregation, Roe V. Wade, Don't Ask Don't Tell's transformation into "Whatever You Like," the transformation from a conscripted militia to an all volunteer army, the vastly expanded citizen access to media and global communication through the internet...

You don't even notice these things, you simply enjoy the fruits of all of this and the country has been trending towards this progressive normal since before you were born.

You're conglomerating a lot of things there.
Should I be grateful for the Civil Rights Movement? Which was a movement of non-violent civil disobedience (that you were earlier decrying in relation to Occupy Wall Street). Because you know they clogged up the roads and public spaces all the time for years, inconveniencing people left and right. People died for that cause, but I should be grateful to the federal government? Maybe I should be grateful for the end of slavery and that women have the right to vote while I'm at it. More gifts from our wonderful government and the white men who run it.
'The all volunteer army' - Say what? The draft has come and then gone several times (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam) due to the fact of them needing cannon fodder for wars. It was not continuous in the past. Yes, there is a permanent war on now, but they have a way of getting bodies for it due to the bad economy. Males still have to register for the Selective Service as far as I know, so it's not like they abandoned the draft entirely.
Roe v Wade - The product of a progressive Supreme Court. Happened almost 40 years ago, so hardly an example of a continuing progressive trend. We have only to look at the people on the Supreme Court today to see the trend in the opposite direction.

But MisterMook is right - claiming our rights are being chipped away shows an ignorance of history. Not that I blame you exactly...
Thanks so much.
I was in college there was Kent State and I vividly remember the feeling that now the goverment was out to not only suppress us but kill us. When I was a child blacks were beaten and killed in the South with the police and courts looking the other way. Go back a little and it was legal for men to rape their wives, it was routine for the cops to raid gay bars and arrest everyone in sight simply for being there, the government legally imprisoned US citizens in internment camps simply because they were of Japanese descent, and 'scientists' legally performed dangerous and harmful experiments on poor black men without information or consent. Yes, we have tons of problems but in the long term things have improved and will continue to improve.
And now we have torture, rendition, the Patriot Act, NDAA, the take over of the government by corporations, communication management units. African American males make up 35% of the prison population.

So, no, not even close. If this was a police state you wouldn't have dared to start this thread for fear someone would report you and you'd be tossed in jail and never heard from again.
Thanks to NDAA I could be tossed in jail and never heard from again - thank God, BObama has promised never to use his superpower.

[Mistermook]

And in the past we had things so much worse. People don't like to talk about it, it's not exactly front page history because it's nothing to feel good about but before Nazi Germany perfected the process to its horrific endgame the US ran concentration camps of its own in the Phillippines. Back in World War I we arrested people for speaking out against the war. Women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't vote and if they tried they'd be lucky if they didn't get hung from a tree. All sorts of things happened in the past that we've improved upon even with Cheney trying defend torture and the Patriot Act. Corporations influencing the government? That shit happened in the past and no one was informed enough by the supposedly free press to care about it... Wars were started by businesses. Hawaii is a state more or less because the Dole family wanted it to be and staged a revolution with the aid of the US government.

You're horrified by the present? You'd be absolutely sick if you compared our past to what we enjoy now. It's okay to be upset with what we still have left to achieve, but it's irresponsible and uneducated to call any singular, temporary setbacks out set against the general trend of history. Cheney's torture defense made news because nearly everyone disagreed with it, not because it's still okay. SOPA and PIPA were news because there was a free press and unfettered free speech to discuss it. And while I agree that at least in some places the local authorities went out of bounds in breaking up Occupy Movement protests, that's nothing compared to the amazing amount of free speech they accomplished in other places without any interference whatsoever.

Frankly you sound spoiled rotten with your freedoms. You've got such a surplus of them that you're spending your time making sweeping false generalizations rather than focusing on specific things that warrant speaking out against. It sounds like a child who doesn't get the one gift they wanted out of a veritable mountain of Xmas gifts, who then throws a tantrum because "Xmas is ruined!" Are we talking about the difficulties with the country openly and freely? Are you truly worried about being imprisoned or beaten for expressing your views? Is the police presence to the average person so intrusive and intimidating that we're living in fear of reprisal? Is there a secret police operating from somewhere, stealing away our neighbors? If you think any of those things are true then you need a tinfoil hat, and maybe medication. Instead of hyperbole, how about we all step back into the real world and fix what's broken rather than make pronouncements that are baseless and unfounded?

[Oaktree]

The fact that the past is more terrible than the present doesn't have any effect on how terrible the present is. If the present is bad, it is bad whether or not the past was as bad or worse. We shouldn't be handwaving off the issues of the present as not mattering when compared to the past, because that leaves us complacent and ready to accept a hell of a lot of terrible stuff that we shouldn't put up with. Liberty isn't that "one gift"; it is a right. It belongs to you in the first place. It isn't something that someone has to give you.

And a person can't have a "surplus" of freedoms. Freedom means freedom of choice, so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others to choose. There can't be a surplus of freedoms because anything above and beyond that definition does not constitute a freedom. Anything less is unjust.

Freedom is also something that no person or other social construct has the right to take away. If you wouldn't use force to make your neighbor act in the way you want him/her to (barring using force to defend yourself), why is it that a collection of people suddenly gain that power? Why is it that you can't take money from your neighbor against your neighbor's will, but a larger group of people can? What makes that right?

[CmarNYC]

And now we have torture, rendition, the Patriot Act, NDAA, the take over of the government by corporations, communication management units. African American males make up 35% of the prison population.

Variations of which have all happened in the past, and worse. I never said there aren't major problems now; I was objecting to your statement that our rights are being 'chipped away', when in fact it's more like a slow and painful process of infringements of rights and civil liberties being chipped away. Have things been in a downturn in some areas for the last ten years or so? That's a valid argument, but it hardly justifies deciding the country is going down the tubes forever, although I understand how it can look like that right now.


Thanks to NDAA I could be tossed in jail and never heard from again

True, but it's unlikely, at least not for just expressing your opinions online. Still doesn't justify the use of the term 'police state', which sounds disrespectful to all the people who have lived and continue to live in true police states.

And I'm sorry for the ignorance remark - you obviously know your history although I disagree with the way you're interpreting it.

[RoseCity]

And in the past we had things so much worse. People don't like to talk about it, it's not exactly front page history because it's nothing to feel good about but before Nazi Germany perfected the process to its horrific endgame the US ran concentration camps of its own in the Phillippines. Back in World War I we arrested people for speaking out against the war. Women couldn't vote. Blacks couldn't vote and if they tried they'd be lucky if they didn't get hung from a tree. All sorts of things happened in the past that we've improved upon even with Cheney trying defend torture and the Patriot Act. Corporations influencing the government? That shit happened in the past and no one was informed enough by the supposedly free press to care about it... Wars were started by businesses. Hawaii is a state more or less because the Dole family wanted it to be and staged a revolution with the aid of the US government.

You're horrified by the present? You'd be absolutely sick if you compared our past to what we enjoy now. It's okay to be upset with what we still have left to achieve, but it's irresponsible and uneducated to call any singular, temporary setbacks out set against the general trend of history. Cheney's torture defense made news because nearly everyone disagreed with it, not because it's still okay. SOPA and PIPA were news because there was a free press and unfettered free speech to discuss it. And while I agree that at least in some places the local authorities went out of bounds in breaking up Occupy Movement protests, that's nothing compared to the amazing amount of free speech they accomplished in other places without any interference whatsoever.


Yes, because I care about basic human rights I'm 'spoiled rotten', and in need of a 'tinfoil hat' and 'medication'. Somewhere, but obviously not here, people know that the right to a fair trial in a timely fashion is a basic human right. Not to be tortured is a basic human right. Not everyone is able to enjoy said rights, but I think that everyone would agree that countries that don't accord people these rights are bad places to be. Further, neither I nor anyone else anywhere else in the world owes thanks to anyone for these rights - that's why they're called basic human rights. Yet Pres Obama has signed a document saying that US citizens can be indefinitely detained without representation. If you're thinking that the NDAA only applies to terrorists, anyone can be called a terrorist. You're going to be locked up without trial or representation, so who exactly is going to refute the charges. You are the first person I've encountered who thought that someone worried over the continuing attack on civil liberties was a spoiled rotten person having a temper tantrum.

Frankly you sound spoiled rotten with your freedoms. You've got such a surplus of them that you're spending your time making sweeping false generalizations rather than focusing on specific things that warrant speaking out against.

I never said anywhere that I thought things were better or worse in the past - that was your straw man and another topic. Maybe you believe that the world is constantly improving, but I doubt everyone would agree. . I'm talking about now. And I have been giving specific examples, not 'sweeping false generalizations' - I think you've got me confused with you.

[Mistermook]

If it's not about comparing life now with life in the past, then what is your premise for comparison with anything? You are having a tantrum. Every word you write sounds like you're stomping your foot and going "thisissoimportantandwhywon'tyouagreewithmeentirely!" If all you're looking for is a pat on the ass and people to agree with you, I suggest you go elsewhere. I've mentioned several times that I don't find our system perfect or without fault, and yet you keep trying to lay this inane, preposterous guilt trip on me for not assuming that imperfection equates with fascism or whatever you're really going on about. Specific things are fine to gripe about. I gripe about them myself. But you've made a generalization with a specific meaning, whether you're willing to admit to or not. And I don't agree with that general feeling. I don't think we're living in a police state, and I think you're absolutely acting like a spoiled child who wants all things she wants, at once when she wants them, and can't accept that someone agrees with you that there is a forest because you keep pointing at an oak and demanding we call it a pine.

You are being silly. You're being as silly as people always are when they say the sky is falling. Please, take a few deep breaths and just chill out... the problem with people who are overexcited to the point of exaggeration? The rest of us eventually ignore them.

[Oaktree]

I think you're being excessively dismissive of the point the OP is making. We may not now be a police state, but we certainly seem to be headed in that direction if we don't remain vigilant. I think it's short-sighted to belittle someone for wanting "all things she wants, at once when she wants them" when the things she wants are basic concepts like human rights and governmental accountability. I'm shocked that you are so dismissive of these things. Are you really so quick to defend a government that could one day decide to take you away, indefinitely, without warning, on trumped-up charges of terrorism, and be operating within the legal system?

[crocobaura]

Are you really so quick to defend a government that could one day decide to take you away, indefinitely, without warning, on trumped-up charges of terrorism, and be operating within the legal system?


Could one day? The US has made it its prerogative to hunt terrorists all over the world, regardless of the costs in terms of both money, man power or logistics. Detaining a possible terrorist in its own back yard won't even make it to the papers, and that could happen any time to any one as we speak because one can never be too cautious.

[Mistermook]

We may not now be a police state, but we certainly seem to be headed in that direction if we don't remain vigilant.
Except that that's so excessively vague and general that it could be applied to any moment and any place in history ever. I'm not dismissing the notion that you shouldn't try to fight oppression, that one shouldn't be wary, but that by premature proclamation of oppression one only stands to diminish true oppression. Essentially it's the equivalent of Godwining - "Oh noes! People are abusing their positions of powah! THE WORLD IS ENDED AND THE SKY IS FALLING!"

I like practical solutions to practical problems. Flailing at the world like an imbecile because of gross exaggerations of generalizations is imminently impractical.

For other uses of this principle: After the recent Kamen Foundation debacle, start a thread where you might announce "Are all charitable foundations run by idiots and fascists?" Taking specifics and winding them up into overstated grossly notions that ignore counterexamples isn't just bad debate form, it's really annoying from a human perspective. It's bad when the other guys do and it's not flattering when someone I might normally agree with on specifics does it either.

Are you really so quick to defend a government that could one day decide to take you away, indefinitely, without warning, on trumped-up charges of terrorism, and be operating within the legal system?
I am, because any government could "one day" do that. "One day" the government might finally decide to install the bubble machine in my backside and pronounce it a national treasure. "One day" I might find myself on a space ship abducted by a race of hot female aliens bound to force me to save their dying race via saucer sex. One day is scary, it's always scary. But because it's always scary "one day" is also completely useless, absolute rubbish from a standpoint of generalizing for the present. "One day" the government, based also on general trends, could have an enforced equality and respect for all mankind, with universal peace and an absolute commitment to the welfare of all citizens. That's also useless for the present, because it's we don't live in the future and we can't wave at a crystal ball and make sweeping insights into larger futures. We certainly can't look at today based on our expectations of the wider future and condemn (or praise) ourselves because of those possible futures.

I grew up during the Cold War, in a military family where my childhood really was absolutely tainted by expectations of disaster based on people's not-so optimistic calculations for the future. What came of that? Not much. Why? Because if you're afraid of what's going to come of something you don't piss and moan about what it is. You buckle down, find the practical problem and create a practical solution. Better yet, don't count on the things that aren't wrong in your world view either. Take the things, any things, that you hold dear and invest in those too.

It's never as good or bad as in now as you ever think it is, and no one knows what the future holds.

[Oaktree]

I agree that conflating the current political climate with a police state is an overstatement and degrades the potency of the term. However, it seems to me that you are arguing too far in the opposite direction. When you say that someone is spoiled by a surplus of freedoms, you are dismissing the perfectly reasonable arguments that the government is currently doing things that it ought not be doing.

And, as to the second part of your response, I know you're informed enough about the issues to know what I was talking about. When I talk about "one day", I'm not talking about legislation that has yet to come through. I'm talking about as soon as you do enough things the government considers suspicious - and their threshold for suspicious is abominably low (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/according-to-the-fbi-internet-privacy-is-now-considered-to-be-suspicious-activity) - under currently enacted legislation, you could be taken away and detained indefinitely without trial. That flies in the face of human rights and directly contradicts the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

[RoseCity]

If it's not about comparing life now with life in the past, then what is your premise for comparison with anything? You are having a tantrum. Every word you write sounds like you're stomping your foot and going "thisissoimportantandwhywon'tyouagreewithmeentirely!" If all you're looking for is a pat on the ass and people to agree with you, I suggest you go elsewhere. I've mentioned several times that I don't find our system perfect or without fault, and yet you keep trying to lay this inane, preposterous guilt trip on me for not assuming that imperfection equates with fascism or whatever you're really going on about. Specific things are fine to gripe about. I gripe about them myself. But you've made a generalization with a specific meaning, whether you're willing to admit to or not. And I don't agree with that general feeling. I don't think we're living in a police state, and I think you're absolutely acting like a spoiled child who wants all things she wants, at once when she wants them, and can't accept that someone agrees with you that there is a forest because you keep pointing at an oak and demanding we call it a pine.

Unbelievable. If anyone reads back through my posts and then through yours, they will see your usual escalation of hysteria and verbal abuse. You are seldom content to make arguments backed by facts. You would prefer to mock, and use reductio ad absurdum.
I don't need to chill out - I've remained calm as I've been called an imbecile, offensively dumb, silly, in need of medication, blah blah tinfoil hat blah blah blah.

If all you're looking for is a pat on the ass and people to agree with you, I suggest you go elsewhere.
Who in the hell do you think you are? I've been taking my lumps here and not whining about all the 'disagrees' I've been getting and, if I choose to continue, then it's none of your concern. Do you expect a moderator to step in and declare you the winner and give you a trophy? If that were to happen, it wouldn't bother me at all - it's not like any of this matters. Yeah, right, I'm the overexcited one here.

You are being silly. You're being as silly as people always are when they say the sky is falling. Please, take a few deep breaths and just chill out... the problem with people who are overexcited to the point of exaggeration? The rest of us eventually ignore them.
I missed the part where I held a gun to your head and forced you to post in this thread. Feel free to start ignoring me starting now.

[Mistermook]

Okay. Sure.

[simsample]

Please stop the personal insults. If you can't debate without your egos getting in the way then just leave the thread.

[candesco]

While i'm an European and not an American i see that the US is actually turned into a police state, especially after 9/11. Now it is a bit lesser since Obama, but it is still too much big brother. Unfortunately we're going in the same direction here in The Netherlands.
It goes awfully into the direction of the movie Minority Report, where they already can read someones mind. Governments are trying to get every single information of any civilian, about what they do in their life, what they have done, their interests and so on.
And acts like SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and now CISPA only confirms that the government, but also the industry, will try to get a foothold on the life of civilians.

[whiterider]

There's no mind reading in Minority Report.

I've already stated very clearly why the US is not a police state earlier in the thread, and there's no point my repeating those arguments, which are still correct. So all that's left is to clear up the Minority Report thing.

[CormorantEnt]

The fact that the past is more terrible than the present doesn't have any effect on how terrible the present is. If the present is bad, it is bad whether or not the past was as bad or worse. We shouldn't be handwaving off the issues of the present as not mattering when compared to the past, because that leaves us complacent and ready to accept a hell of a lot of terrible stuff that we shouldn't put up with. Liberty isn't that "one gift"; it is a right. It belongs to you in the first place. It isn't something that someone has to give you.

And a person can't have a "surplus" of freedoms. Freedom means freedom of choice, so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others to choose. There can't be a surplus of freedoms because anything above and beyond that definition does not constitute a freedom. Anything less is unjust.

Freedom is also something that no person or other social construct has the right to take away. If you wouldn't use force to make your neighbor act in the way you want him/her to (barring using force to defend yourself), why is it that a collection of people suddenly gain that power? Why is it that you can't take money from your neighbor against your neighbor's will, but a larger group of people can? What makes that right?

Regardless your thoughts on Bradlee Dean on other issues, you might like what he has to say in this video:

1967 vs. 2013 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrCPvZidpeI)

[GabyBee]

I actually watched it. That video is obnoxiously sanctimonious, and it's just a bunch of straw man fallacies to suggest that things were better in the 1960s. Additionally, in two separate points, he suggested that society would be better off if people were allowed to physically punish children for acting out - in one case, a father whipping his son with a belt; in the other, a principal giving a student a "good paddling". He also suggests that ADD is not a real disorder, that a student bringing a shotgun onto school property is harmless (lol), and that minors aren't afforded due process under the law in today's society.

He also seems to support the notion that prayer in school is a good thing, and that all high school students should have to pass a "Bible test" in order to graduate.

No.

(By the way, you know who has it a HELL of a lot better in 2013 than in 1967? Black people. Thank you, government.)