USA: Police State? by SignyM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Frem

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:07 AM

Seperate thought, so imma post it seperate.

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

Demolition Man.

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

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

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

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

-F

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

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

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

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

--Anthony

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:32 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

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

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

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

Here’s the definition from the dictionary:

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

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

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

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

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Police State: a political unit characterized by

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

Busy now. Will explain later.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:48 AM

HERO

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

we say ignorance is no defense ?

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

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:52 AM

HERO

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

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

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:58 AM

JUDITH

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:29 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

I bet they were pretty pissed too.

-Frem

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:30 AM

MALBADINLATIN

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

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

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

The US would get about a 3 IMO

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:32 AM

JONGSSTRAW

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:48 AM

HERO

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

COUGHING IS ILLEGAL
Authorities said Thursday they have charged a man with assault on a government official after an officer said the man coughed into his face during a traffic stop.
Quote:
Morrisville Officer Chris Gill said in his report that Kent Kauffman looked into his eyes before "hacking" in his face three times. Kauffman said he did cough from the window of his minivan but did so toward Gill's waist. "He says I coughed in his face," Kauffman told The News & Observer of Raleigh. "But that would only work if he had a 4-foot-long face."
www.wxii12.com/news/14217423/detail.html

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:50 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

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

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

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

Demolition Man.

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

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

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

Oscar Meyer Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:01 AM

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.

H

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

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:13 AM

Jong,

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

Now you're calling people pinheads and retards?

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:38 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Yes...you're correct here.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:02 AM

Thanks Jong,

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

intellectual life Anti-evolutionists. 'Nuf said,

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:11 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:14 AM

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

Lawyerese to the hilt.

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

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

Like I said, off the deep end.

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

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

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

-Frem

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:21 AM

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

AMEN.

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:12 AM

JUDITH

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:26 PM

CANTTAKESKY

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

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

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

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

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:33 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

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

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

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

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

Even tazered this one.

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

These are Canadians, but just as bad.

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

And taking food from the hungry in Zimbabwe.

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:10 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:29 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Anthony

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:47 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:49 PM

SERGEANTX

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

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

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

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

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

Also, they give Hero hard-ons.

SergeantX

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:56 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Nobody,

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

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

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

--Anthony

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:10 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

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

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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:13 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:19 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 ...

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:26 PM

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

As far as the rest of it...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Frem

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:32 PM

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:41 PM

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

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

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

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

-Frem

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 ..........

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

Why thank you! I think I just did.

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:57 PM

FLETCH2

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:02 PM