Top 10 Signs You Live in a Police State

[MosesPresley]

Obviously this isn't a scientific study I conducted. It's my opinion posted on a gaming site.

[Wiglaf]

Because neither McCain nor any democratic nominee would keep gitmo open, the camp will close anyway in 2009. One of the inherent checks against a police state we have is this thing called 'elections' and 'free speech' and 'the judiciary,' all of which will have had a crack at Bush by 2009.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No.

I want to revisit this for a moment. I attempted to post a response to it, but it got lost in the shuffle.

Your verbosity is astounding at times. I guess its a defense mechanism. I can't argue with what is not being stated.

The civil war had thousands of lives lost on both sides. It was an internal struggle. In today's dollars, I'm sure it caused billions of dollars in damage. The country's very existence was at stake. Extreme measures were called for and Lincoln's actions were vindicated, although the nation was fundamentally changed.

9/11: We lost three buildings, 4 passenger jets and the pentagon was on fire. Not really the same thing and certainly not on the same scale.

[Wiglaf]

And the scale of suspension of habeas corpus has adjusted accordingly. Bush hasn't done half of what Lincoln did (and Bush did it to non citizens. with the partial blessing of the Supreme Court interpreting the geneva conventions).

9/11: We lost three buildings, 4 passenger jets and the pentagon was on fire. Not really the same thing and certainly not on the same scale.

What a pompous statement . Losing 3,000 civilians in one day is an unprecedented loss of innocent life, and the idea that terrorists can get their hands on a nuke and kill millions more is enough to justify suspending habeas corpus for some combatants of terror governments.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
I want to revisit this for a moment...

If you feel that our rights and their preservation are of paramount importance, how can you be for thier suspension in one instance (suspension of Habeus Corpus, military trials for civilians, and restrictions on free speech, etc.) are an acceptable trade off in any instance? It's starting to seem like you don't value your rights at all and are just complaining out of knee jerk Bush hatred.

[Wiglaf]

Right. mosespresley's original claim is that suspension of habeas corpus is always "indefensible," but then he contradicts that.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you feel that our rights and their preservation are of paramount importance, how can you be for thier suspension in one instance (suspension of Habeus Corpus, military trials for civilians, and restrictions on free speech, etc.) are an acceptable trade off in any instance? It's starting to seem like you don't value your rights at all and are just complaining out of knee jerk Bush hatred.

I guess that makes sense to you.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Right. mosespresley's original claim is that suspension of habeas corpus is always "indefensible," but then he contradicts that.

Wiggie you're a troll of the first stripe. Although I didn't state it specifically, suspension of habeas corpus in today's political situation is indefensible. The civil war was an extreme situation. We are not in an extreme situation. The terrorists got us once and we are supposed give up our rights. I don't think so.

You brought up Lincoln to support your argument, because the neo-cons like to compare Bush to Lincoln. Bush is certainly no Lincoln and 9/11 is not the civil war.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
I guess that makes sense to you.

Well you've yet to point out a meaningful difference between the two instance other than the fact Lincoln (unlike Bush) ignored judicial rebuke.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MosesPresley


Giving people freedom from being tortured while in custody and to be treated fairly, would solve that problem.

That would be great, but you are being reactionary about it and proposing wide scale change to society that really doesn't have to do with the issue. All of the issues that you mentioned in the OP need to be evaluated seperately not looked at as a basic loss of freedom deemed therefore bad.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by PLATO
Two things strike me as i read through this thread:

1.) Liberals always shout about a "police state" and

2.) Conservatives always ignore the erosion of our rights.

My net conclusion is, that although we are not in a police state, that the trend is certainly worth looking at very closely.

I can't necessarily speak for conservatives but I don't see which of my rights have been eroded. The right to not have my overseas phone conversations monitored if something flagged them as suspicious? IIUC they would not be able to prosecute me for anything that wasn't related to national security even if I was implicating myself on the phone for my secret life of crime.

Specifically what right did I have before which has been removed or now exists only in an eroded condition?

Various restraints on various government activities have been relaxed somewhat but that does not translate directly into eroded rights.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That would be great, but you are being reactionary about it and proposing wide scale change to society that really doesn't have to do with the issue. All of the issues that you mentioned in the OP need to be evaluated seperately not looked at as a basic loss of freedom deemed therefore bad.

I'm being a little reactionary, but I am not proposing wide scale change. The Bush regime has already instituted wide scale change. I simply want our constitutional rights to be protected and expanded where necessary.
You hit the nail on the head though with the OP. My OP was too broad, but I thought all of these little discussions about each right, that we are missing the forest for the trees. Taken together, I do see them as a basic loss of freedom.

What strikes me as scary is how quickly everyone wants to give up their rights, just so they can have the illusion of safety. This is the land of the free, right? Then let us be free. Freedom has its costs, and one of those costs is less safety.

[Wiglaf]

What strikes me as scary is how quickly everyone wants to give up their rights, just so they can have the illusion of safety. This is the land of the free, right? Then let us be free. Freedom has its costs, and one of those costs is less safety.

What rights have Americans given up, exactly? You don't seem to have any idea, you can't cite specific laws or court cases to justify any of this.

[MosesPresley]

Jose Padilla

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I can't necessarily speak for conservatives but I don't see which of my rights have been eroded.

Having telephone calls secretly monitored violates your right to privacy.

also--

For a time, the Patriot Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.[50] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[210] with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.[211][212] However supporters of the amendment, such as Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to the New York City Journal, expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary delay in notification of a search order stops terrorists from tipping off counterparts who are being investigated.[213] In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologised to Mr. Mayfield and his family,[214] Mr. Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mr. Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[51][52]

also

One of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.[131] This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order due to the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[132] Later, the Patriot Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[133] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.

of course, the fact that the latter two examples were struck down by the courts as a violation of your rights argues against the police state assertion of the OP.