Quote:

---

Nothing new.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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 ...

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

plus implied several others, like rescinding the Military Commissions Act

---

Quote:

---

and provisions of the Patriot Act,...

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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 .

---

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.

---

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".

.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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!

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

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?

.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

nor did he set up huge "detention centers",

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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".
.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Unfortunately, the United States cannot defeat Terror.

---

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.

---

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 ...

---

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 ..........

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 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

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

I have no problems with disagreement. 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.

---

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."

---

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 ?

"

---

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 ?

---

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.

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---