Is the U.S. turning into a police state?

[Semo]

Refutation of Police State Claim - Part IV

Police at various levels do photograph protestors, infiltrate organizations, and employ electronic surveillance methods to spy on political dissidents. While this can certainly be bad when taken to the extreme (i.e. the Hooverist FBI, COINTELPRO, Nixon's and Clinton's dirty little tricks), but in moderation such activities are acceptable and (boy, people are going to take me to task for this) necessary.

Members of dissident groups and fellow travelers have planted bombs, sent explosives through the mail, been involved in arson attacks, vandalized and destroyed private and public property. They've broken into private buildings and public facilities. They've robbed banks. Some have even killed people.

In this light, I believe it's appropriate to monitor dissident groups, as long as those individuals who abide by the law are not imprisoned, punished or killed for the legal expression of views that are contrary to government interests. When I say legal, I actually mean legal, not (as is becoming fashionable) "non-violent" with the definition of violence being offered by the perpetrators of the crime. (I'm specifically thinking of the "black bloc" here.)

Quite obviously, I challenge your claim that people who speak out on political issues are silenced by the police apparatus of the United States. The fact that I live in a poor neighborhood is irrelevant. The fact that I grew up poor is irrelevant. The fact that the FBI burst through the front door of my house with guns drawn when I was a small child is irrelevant. The fact that my grandfather was investigated during the McCarthy era is irrelevant. None of this gives me the moral or intellectual authority to make the claim that the U.S. is or isn't a police state.

[Semo]

Refutation of Police State Claim - Part V (Last Part)

What is relevant is the fact that the New York Times carried a whistful and nostalgiac profile of Bill Ayers and his book. (Ironically, this article was published on September 11th. As people recoiled from the horror around them, they got to read that Mr. Ayers didn't regret blowing stuff up. Indeed, he didn't think that he and his compatriots did enough.) Bobby Seale writes recipe books, teaches at a respected university, and sells barbecue sauce. Hell, Mumia Abu Jamal, a convicted murderer, has written all of his books in prison (and his supporters still claim he was jailed by the evil fascist Philly police in order to silence him).

Those cases, and others like them, are what gives me the authority to assert that the United States of America is not the United Police States of Amerika. I mean, it's not even a case of the U.S. being a "small scale" police state when it comes to political dissent.

Yeah, I already know that the cruel jack-booted police thugs brutally quash anti-Globalization demonstrations. The dozens of deaths and serious injuries suffered by protestors at every such protest is a truly alarming reflection on our police state.

That's sarcasm. For those not familiar with anti-Globalization protests in the United States, I'm not aware of a single fatality or serious injury suffered by a protestor at the hands of police. Even at the largest and most spectacular anti-Globalization protest, the demonstration with the clearest documented cases of police misconduct, Seattle, I'm unaware of even a single fatality or serious injury sustained by a demonstrator.

(This message has run on a bit. I would have liked to address some of Chegitz's other points, but I don't think it's appropriate to spam the message boards with a dozen posts. I apologize for taking up so much room already.)

[chequita guevara]

You know, . . . forget it. If you don't want to see a police state, you won't see it untill and if it decides to smack you upside the head for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Growing up poor doesn't give any moral authority, it simply means you are morely likely to be in a position to see the repressive arm of the state in action. Hence, also the point about demonstrations.

A country doesn't have to look like Pinchet's Chile to be a police state. As far as I'm concerned, if you live in a neighborhood where the police are a constant presence, who ignore your rights, and go through your belongings without cause, you live in a police state. If you get pulled over for Driving While Black, you live in a police state. If you are peacefully protesting, and you get tear-gassed, knocked upside the head, and arrested, you live in a police state. Since all those things occur in America . . .

But if you do as your told and move along when told, if you pee into that jar because your boss tells you, if you don't wonder why a vastly disproportionate number of minorities get prison terms, then you don;t live in a police state. Good Germans didn't live in a police state either. Neither do good Americans.

[Ramo]

Absolutely, che!

If you want to ignore indefinite detentions, the US is not a police state. If you want to ignore racial profiling, the US is not a police state. If you want to ignore incarceration based on secret evidence, the US is not a police state. If you want to ignore the lack of institutional safeguards on the information that the state can acquire, the US is not a police state. If you want to ignore the half million non-violent drug offenders in American prisons, the US is not a police state.

Do what you're told and trust the gov't, and there's no police state.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Semo

With that being noted, I disagree strongly with your classification of the U.S. as a "police state". By any reasonable definition, a police state is a political entity in which police power is used in a repressive, intrusive and often arbitrary manner to facilitate governmental control of the social, political and economic lives of its citizens. Historically, police states have been single-party republics with underdeveloped court systems. Such states tend to field large secret police forces and blur the distinction between police and military personnel. In such states, social and political dissent is often crushed in a brutal manner with long jail terms or death sentences (either in stacked, "kangaroo courts" or through the use of police power) for relatively minor, often politically-oriented offenses. Such offenses would include the writing or publishing of materials critical of the government, speaking out against the state's leaders, or protesting against the state's policies.

The facts just don't support such a label.

I have only mentioned my opinion in how in limited ways, the United States, or some individual states within United States has taken up a couple of aspects of what would be in a true police state.

1) Today, in our contemporary nation, the arrest of two mutually consenting adults having sex if they are both of the same gender, in the privacy of their homes is perfectly legal under hate-inspired "sodomy" laws.

2) Today, in our contempory nation, more African-Americans on death row are executed for the same crimes commited than white Americans on death row.

3) Historically, until the 1940's after World War II, law enforcement passively encouraged the institution of lynching by civilian mobs outside the realm of legal law.

4) The Communist scare of the 1950's is another historical example of increased police state activities.

While the United States has never been a true police state, or even at the present not a true police state, it certainly has carried out policies and action that true police states have carried out, although in a more limited sense.

[Semo]

Chegitz wrote:

"But if you do as your told and move along when told, if you pee into that jar because your boss tells you, if you don't wonder why a vastly disproportionate number of minorities get prison terms, then you don;t live in a police state. Good Germans didn't live in a police state either. Neither do good Americans."

When facts fail, it's easier to characterize your opponent as a boot licker and suggest connections between what your opponent's defending and Nazi Germany, isn't it? The good ol' "you're a nasty fascist collaborator" game, and a particularly contrived variation, to boot. It must be an off night. Given the overall quality of your posts, I honestly expected you to be a bit more subtle than that.

[MrFun]

Semo, read my post that is in response to yours.

[Wraith]

--"By any reasonable definition, a police state is"

Like I've said, we're not there yet, but we're on the way.

Repressive, intrusive and arbitrary uses of power? Check.
Single party republic? Close, there's not that much practical difference between the two, and with the recent Incumbent Protection Act there's even less likelyhood of that changing.
Underdeveloped court systems? In some areas, yes.
Large secret police forces? Well, we don't have the secret part (AFAIK), but there are certainly a large number of police forces, and who knows what groups like the NSA are up to.
Bluring the distinction between police and military? Even before this recent National Guard fad, federal police forces (such as the BATF) have received large amounts of military training. There are also a large number of paramilitary units at the state and local level (SWAT teams).
We haven't got to the brutal crushing of political dissent yet, except in a few areas (ie. drug laws). The kangaroo courts comment applies, I think, especially in light of things like three-strikes laws and zero-tolerance policies.

Wraith
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"
-- James Madison

[Jac de Molay]

an emphatic yes.

che:

Wraith, good summation. And the Madison quote is exactly the way I feel. We seem to be now caught in the crossfire between the "wars" on Drugs and Terror. The single biggest threat to our narrowing window of freedoms is the politician who says "there ought to be a law", and then attaches more loss of freedom for crimes committed past or present. (Busted for drugs? Lose your house, car, and driver's license in the present, college money and welfare in the future, with more to come I'm sure)

Politicians have this inexplicable yearning to feel relevant and useful, so they seem to pass idiosyncratic addendums and new laws based on what they read in the daily newspaper.

In the current socio-political climate, things will get real ugly, real quick unless americans buck the usual trend of apathy and start speaking up in greater numbers.

[mactbone]

Che: Which of your points are policy or law? Last I checked there were no laws for racial profiling. There were no laws other than reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing to rifle through your things. That one's been on the book for ages.

Look, you guys can sit here and argue how big mean and awful the government is, but first of all, you're able to argue about it. Second, what's stopping you from being a politician and changing it? If you feel as strongly as it sounds you do, you might as well take direct action. Run on a platform of taking laws off the books. But obviously since the US is a police state you wouldn't be allowed to run

Mr. Fun: You do have a point, except that as far as I know, the sodomy laws sound like they're laws that noone enforces unless they happen to be witnessing it. There are no sodomy busts, no undercover sodomy agents, it just doesn't take up the police's time.

Wraith: I don't liike how the political parties are set up either, but you can't say there are no differences. Plus, the only reason both are trying to be more center is because they will get more voters, meaning that most Americans have similar viewpoints.

Where and how are the courts underdeveloped? Since it's obviouly not the Supreme Court, it makes no difference because you can keep appealing higher and higher to a more developed court.

Oh no, we aren't fully aware of all actions, but because of that, let's imply that they are secretly tracking us and finding dissenters.

SWAT is used for extremely hostile situations, as such they should have some military training, as it is they are cops with some military training, not military personnel being used as police.

Everyone loves to bring up the War on Drugs every time they disagree with the government, but as long as you don't associate yourself with drugs, which isn't very hard, you have no worries. I have yet to be hassled by any officer, or be intimidated (well, more than I would be if I was doing something illegal) by a police officer.

[Jac de Molay]

Everyone loves to bring up the War on Drugs every time they disagree with the government, but as long as you don't associate yourself with drugs, which isn't very hard, you have no worries.

So you don't have to worry about anything as long as you're doing nothing wrong? That's a fallacy because it's the governing body thats setting more onerous laws in the absence of consent by the people. I'm sure the Jews felt the same way as the Nazis were passing stricter laws against them, at the same time assuring them they have "no worries" as long as they did nothing wrong.

Dave

[Adalbertus]

Good Germans didn't live in a police state either

Depends heavily what you understand to be a good German. If you belonged to the 5% - 20% that brainlessly hailed everything Hitler did, then you probably never felt like living in a police state.
The majority however felt like living in a police state. And this is exactly the thing with "keep your mouth shut". Three examples which happened quite close to me:
My grandfather said one day at work something along the line "Hitler works towards a war." He didn't come home the evening. Next morning he arrived at home very tired. He had had good luck: There was someone in the police department who knew him personally.
On his birthday, the father of my godfather looked out of the window, saw flags all over the street and said "Oh, that wasn't really necessary". The day was also "Führers Birthday" which was a public holiday at that time. Anyway, he got arrested and had a similar luck as my grandfather.
The house my grandparents and my father lived in, was close to the road leading from the airport to the city centre of Cologne. When Hitler visited Cologne, they gave orders to the inhabitants of each house. The trustworthy had to jubilate, the not so trustworthy (my grandparents included) had to go in to the parts of the house which were far from the road. If something moves it will be shot at.

The existence of concentration camps was known to most people in the Third Reich, what happened inside, not. It was a taboo to ask about this, bold people wo did do so were either extremely carefully or else given a chance to look at it personally; and only the parts with German prisoners, which means the existence of the holocaust was virtually unknown.

So, thats about the fear to live in a police state if you don't adore it. I think, America is still far from it. But don't weaken vigiliance.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Semo
Given the overall quality of your posts, I honestly expected you to be a bit more subtle than that.

I tend to be less subtle at three AM while falling asleep at my keyboard.

Okay, my argument last night was hyperbolic, I'll admit. Doesn't mean it's not based on truth. For the most part, America is not a police state. But, in someplaces it is. Under certain conditions, it is. That's what I've been hoping you would take away from my argument.

If you keep your nose clean, and you aren't a Black or Latino male, chances are, you will never come smack up against the nightsick. Most Americans never will. But sometimes Americans have to strike at their jobs, and all of a sudden, there's cops (public and private) all over telling them what they can and can't do, investigating their families, beating them, threatening them.

Sometimes Americans have to protest their government's actions. Next thing you know, your phone is tapped, you have Fed's sitting outside your apartment at midnight, you start getting arrested for jaywalking, etc. Smart off to a cop, get arrested, taken to an alley, and get beaten. Happened to a friend of mine (back in the 60s in Chicago). You might even get killed, if not sleeping in your bed, like the cops did to the Chicago leaders of the Black Panthers, then by proxie agents of the state, as happened on Pine Ridge Reservation, where almost 70 murders of activists remain unsolved to this day.

Maybe you'll be framed for a crime you didn't commit, as happened to Geronomi ji-Jaga, who was convicted of murder based on the testimony of a paid Fed informer, even though ji-Jaga was 600 miles away when the murder was committed; or Leonard Peltier, who remains in prison despite the fact that the Feds admitt they don't know who who killed those FBI agents. Maybe you did commit a crime, but you won't get a fair trial, as with Mumia abu-Jamal (I personally believe he may have killed the police officer, but it's clear he has never had a fair trial). There are over 100 political prisoners in our jails, not a lot by some standards, but more than of which most Americans are aware.

And then there's the War on Drugs, which MacTbone apparently thinks is no little thing. If you live in a community targetted by the WoD, then you live in a police state. The police are an ever constant presence, hasseling anyone they think are involved with drugs. In their zeal to do their job, the police think little of trampling the rights of certain sectors of the public. 5th Amendment, due process, don't need that. 4th Amendment, protection against unwarrented searches and seizures, no need for that. 8th Amendment protections against cruel and unsual punishment, nope, don't need that. And slavery . . . well that's back, since the 13th Amendment allows it if convicted of a crime. For profit prisons, with prisoners packaging Microsoft software or Starbucks coffee or taking TWA reservations.

Lastly, there is the War on Terror, which as Comrade Ramo has pointed out, has resulted in the ignoring of the rights of habeus corpus, the right to be free from torture (if you were captured outside the US), the right to confront your accuser, the right to representation by an attorney, etc.

No, for the most part the US is not a police state. I can strenuously complain about such abuses in our country. Yet the fact that people do that in Cuba doesn't seem to have its critics saying that it is not a police state. But there are places and times in which the US is a police state. And those places and those times keep expanding.

[Wraith]

--"Second, what's stopping you from being a politician and changing it?"

It's not a career I'd enjoy at all. That said, it's still something I'm seriously considering in a few years. I'd probably have to finish a university degree of some sort first, and it's not something I'd want to do before I had a good economic foundation of my own. In a few years, maybe I will run for something. I probably won't have any chance of winning (in a few years, if the trend continues, third parties will be effectively shut out of the election process), but I'm a white male, so it's still possible. Till then I'll stick with supporting others who are running.

--"There are no sodomy busts, no undercover sodomy agents, it just doesn't take up the police's time."

The problem with laws like that is that they're still on the books. The selective, arbitrary enforcement of silly things like that is certainly part of the definition of a police state. For now, they are not a major issue, but that says nothing about next year.

--"I don't liike how the political parties are set up either, but you can't say there are no differences."

Good thing I didn't then I said not much practicle difference, and that is the case. Their rhetoric is different in a few areas, but on the whole they're both for a larger, more intrusive federal government.

--"Where and how are the courts underdeveloped?"

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals springs to mind. IIRC, they're overturned rather often. The increasing amount of judicial activism is another (judges aren't there to rewrite laws).
The US courts also simplly cannot handle the case load. There are so many stupid/silly laws, and so much need for tort reform, that they've been overloaded. I'd say this counts as underdeveloped as well.

--"it makes no difference because you can keep appealing higher and higher to a more developed court."

The Supreme Court cannot handle the number of cases that are appealed at that level. Moreover, they are not meant to handle most cases, just those effecting Constitutional issues. They will almost never (can't think of any exceptions, for that matter) be involved in civil cases, and the civil courts are one of our biggest problems (tort again).

--"as it is they are cops with some military training, not military personnel being used as police."

Well, my father is a police officer. He does weapons training, in fact. I'm not unaware of the distinction you mention, but the attitude in most of the SWAT departments does not match. They are also not the main point of my complaint, which is using the National Guard as security forces and the training of federal "police" forces by the military. The BATF agents involved in the Waco debacle, for instance, had been military trained, not police trained. Nothing in their operation resembled a police action, it was a pure military op. This is the kind of thing I'm worried about.

--"but as long as you don't associate yourself with drugs, which isn't very hard, you have no worries"

Incorrect, for many reasons. Not just what DetroitDave said, either. Many people have lost out to the WoD despite having nothing to do with drugs. One businessman lost his charter air service after his plane was consficated by the government. Why? Because at one point he carried someone suspected to be involved in the drug trade. Note that no charges were ever filed against the businessman, and even the agents (DEA, IIRC) involved never claimed that he was knowingly a part of any drug transaction. His property was still consficated, has not been returned, and he has not been compensated. This is also not an isolated incident. There are a number of documented cases of people having their property seized under drug laws without charges ever being filed, much less a conviction obtained.
You haven't been affected yet? Well, lucky you. Neither have I. However, I know that it's possible at any time for this to hit me. I don't like that.

Wraith
"The saddest epitaph which can be carved in the memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you lived in a poor area of Mississippi.

Define poor area in a state like MS. If your refering to the Delta (the poorest area in the State), I've never lived there. Though most of my family did live there during the Civil Rights movement and have told me some scary stories.

What's your experience with police?

Suprisingly good. But my experience maybe skewed somewhat by two factors: 1) My race. & 2) The fact that I've lived in areas where the police force was relatively well disciplined in comparison to the rest of the State, at least according to my Criminal Justice professor.