How real police states deal with dissenters

[Hans]

Kuwait has found a simple method for getting rid of potentially dangerous foreigners. Recently, there was a demonstration protesting the recent killing of Shia Islamic terrorist Imad Mughniyah. Kuwaiti police took note of which foreigners were present at the rally, and has issued deportation notices for them.

In addition, Kuwaiti Shia who were at the rally have been summoned by the police for interrogation.

This is how a real police state reacts to those it doesn't like - why not the 'NWO' dominated US......LOL

[cisco]

I keep wondering how anyone can believe we live in a fascist state when those who cry it are allowed to continue doing so.

I've been thinking about starting a thread: 'Is it possible to live in a totalitarian state and not know it'. I think the answer is no but I'm curious to hear what others think.

[twinstead]

I can only laugh at idiots who say the US is a police state. Obviously, they have NO idea what a REAL police state is like. I can imagine even North Koreans, with NO outside information at all, know something is up.

[Hans]

I've live in two police states, definitely velvet glove for the United Arab Emirates and a cloth one for Saudi Arabia. I often recommend that European and NA wooish people go live in the rest of the world to gain perspective.

I always considered Saudi Arabia to be the world's largest minimum security prison. Believe me you KNOW when you are in such a country - even if just visiting.

[twinstead]

I would imagine the females that believe we're living in a police state would change their tune after a few days in Saudi Arabia.

Until the US has bearded 'Christain Police' roaming the streets looking for religious offenders I would expect them to basically shut the hell up.

[fezzic]

Maybe after one encounter (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329605,00.html) with the Saudi religious police force.

[twinstead]

Maybe after one encounter (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329605,00.html) with the Saudi religious police force.

I really felt sorry for that woman. It appears her arrest completely blindsided her, and this is someone who pretty much knows the Saudi culture--or at least thought she did.

[CHF]

I think deep down twoofers want to find themselves in a police state because it would validate their mindless faith in idiots like Alex Jones. They've spent so much time screaming about a police state that it would actually be kinda disappointing for them if it didn't show up.

Occasionally they slip up and let this be known - like the time Dylan Avery said something to the effect of "I'd like to think we're on a government watch list..."

Why on earth would he want to be monitored by an evil government that he claims murders it own people?

Because if the "inside job" perps don't care about them blowing their cover, then it's pretty likely that there was no inside job!

[twinstead]

Yea. What if you threw a police state and nobody showed up?

[LastChild]

A police state in America wouldn't happen over night. It's a chipping away process.

[The Doc]

A police state in America wouldn't happen over night. It's a chipping away process.

The point is that a large number of people who support your theories claim that the United States already is a police state. Eg. Alex Jones.

[twinstead]

A police state in America wouldn't happen over night. It's a chipping away process.

This claim of 'chipping away' is without historical perspective. From the Civil War when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to the dark, paranoid days of WWII on the home front (what with all those Japanese being 'relocated'). One can't cry that the sky is falling at every perceived slight of their rights.

Besides, many of your ideological persuasion believe we are in a police state now. So you think we're on a slippery slope, huh? Well. We shall see.

Whom do you think will be declared right in the end?

[CHF]

A police state in America wouldn't happen over night. It's a chipping away process.

Yeah no kidding!

I once asked a member of the Toronto Truth Movement how long the transformation to police state has been going on.

"About 50 years."

:eye-poppi

[CHF]

By the way, Hitler turned Germany from democracy to dictatorship in about half a year.

The NWO, on the other hand, likes to do it slooooooooow.

[twinstead]

By the way, Hitler turned Germany from democracy to dictatorship in about half a year.

The NWO, on the other hand, likes to do it slooooooooow.

The first time that I can't proclaim on this forum, "I THINK GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN IDIOT" without fear, THEN I'll start to worry.

Evil government people, you have my contact information. Come get me!

[Metullus]

I have lived in quite a few "police states": Iraq under Hussein, Iran, Yemen, and most of West Africa. I also lived in both the UAE and Saudi, neither of which even approached the others.

Truthers simply do not have a clue.

[tsig]

I really felt sorry for that woman. It appears her arrest completely blindsided her, and this is someone who pretty much knows the Saudi culture--or at least thought she did.

Why feel sorry for her? She closed her eyes and walked off a cliff.

She apparently thought that she was immune to the poison in the air around her and was surprised when she got sick.

How about the other women who did not have the pull to get out of jail?

[twinstead]

Why feel sorry for her? She closed her eyes and walked off a cliff.

She apparently thought that she was immune to the poison in the air around her and was surprised when she got sick.

How about the other women who did not have the pull to get out of jail?

Yea, I know. I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for somebody who walks head-first into a malfunctioning automatic door thinking it should always open.

[tsig]

Yea, I know. I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for somebody who walks head-first into a malfunctioning automatic door thinking it should always open.

She was given a little education in Shri'a law. If you walk in minefields and ignore the signs you first lesson may be your last.

She was lucky.

[Corsair 115]

The NWO, on the other hand, likes to do it slooooooooow.Not just slowly, but with ridiculously complicated plans. The NWO leadership is clearly fond of Rube Goldberg.

[rwguinn]

Not just slowly, but with ridiculously complicated plans. The NWO leadership is clearly fond of Rube Goldberg.

Erm....
That is burn before reading information. Report immediately to the broom closet for remedial re-briefing and wedgies...

[abenja1]

I wish Boston was a police state, then perhaps the BPD would do their darn job. I mean that in jest of course :D

[PhantomWolf]

The first time that I can't proclaim on this forum, "I THINK GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN IDIOT" without fear, THEN I'll start to worry.

Evil government people, you have my contact information. Come get me!

What do you mean you think he is?

[Corsair 115]

Erm....
That is burn before reading information. Report immediately to the broom closet for remedial re-briefing and wedgies...Check my location. I'm currently setting up the fake Apollo 11 landing site on the Moon for when those new lunar satellites fly over and take pictures. I know it's not as sexy as the 9/11 job, but hey, we've all got our assigned roles...

...at least, that's what NWO kitty told me.

[timhau]

I've been thinking about starting a thread: 'Is it possible to live in a totalitarian state and not know it'. I think the answer is no but I'm curious to hear what others think.

I think we'll get the answer when the NKVD archives come online. A search for "What do you mean You can't make jokes about Stalin?" should settle the question.

[Patriot4life]

What are your thoughts about the "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" that passed in Oct of 2007. Many people find the language a bit too broad based.

for example the definition of "violent radicalization”. This term means “the process of adapting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence to advance political, religious, or social change”

homegrown terrorism”, talks about the planned use, threatened use, of force or violence by a group to intimidate or coerce the government of the United States.

to me this bill seems to target dissidence.

BTW does anyone have any links to new info on this? has the commision been formed yet?

[twinstead]

What do you mean you think he is?

;)

[HawksFan]

What are your thoughts about the "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" that passed in Oct of 2007. Many people find the language a bit too broad based.

for example the definition of "violent radicalization”. This term means “the process of adapting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence to advance political, religious, or social change”

homegrown terrorism”, talks about the planned use, threatened use, of force or violence by a group to intimidate or coerce the government of the United States.

to me this bill seems to target dissidence.

BTW does anyone have any links to new info on this? has the commision been formed yet?

No, it targets dissidence that incorporates violence or force or the threat of violence or force. Bit of a difference there.

[gumboot]

History tells us that when police states are implemented they are implemented suddenly, with obvious and undeniable acts, and that once in place they are very obvious both to people inside the state and those outside.

If the USA were a police state, or indeed were it in the process of becoming a police state, it would be unique amongst police states.

[Dave Rogers]

for example the definition of "violent radicalization”. This term means “the process of adapting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence to advance political, religious, or social change”

homegrown terrorism”, talks about the planned use, threatened use, of force or violence by a group to intimidate or coerce the government of the United States.

My bolding. What, exactly, is the problem with making it illegal to commit or to persuade others to commit acts of violence? What I find most surprising about bills like this is that the acts they purport to criminalise seem to me to be already covered by existing criminal law in most countries with a reasonably well-formed criminal code. What are they actually changing?

Dave

[gumboot]

My bolding. What, exactly, is the problem with making it illegal to commit or to persuade others to commit acts of violence? What I find most surprising about bills like this is that the acts they purport to criminalise seem to me to be already covered by existing criminal law in most countries with a reasonably well-formed criminal code. What are they actually changing?

Dave



Essentially all terrorism does is establish that a criminal act is worse if the intention behind that criminal act is to force political change.

In a democratic state I believe this is absolutely true, and I think, for example, that murder for the purpose of forcing political change should be treated more harshly than just murder.

Perhaps that could be a simple definition of terrorism? "A criminal act for the purpose of forcing political change".

[Mister Agenda]

What's 'extremist'? Who decides? How is it decided? How is it decided that your purpose in promoting or adapting an extremist belief system is to facilitate ideologically-based violence? If one Pentecostal Church decides to blow something up 'in the name of Jesus', does that make Pentecostalism an extremist belief system for the purpose, etc., etc.?

I don't think we're sliding into a police state, but that doesn't sound like a good law to me. The definitions are too open to subjective interpretation.

[WildCat]

What are they actually changing?

Dave
It's a way for the Feds to prosecute crimes that would otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of the states to prosecute.

[drkitten]

Essentially all terrorism does is establish that a criminal act is worse if the intention behind that criminal act is to force political change.

In a democratic state I believe this is absolutely true, and I think, for example, that murder for the purpose of forcing political change should be treated more harshly than just murder.

Perhaps that could be a simple definition of terrorism? "A criminal act for the purpose of forcing political change".

No --- Rosa Park's sitting at the front of the bus was technically a "criminal act." Violating a law as a protest against the law has a long and honorable history that I would hate to see eliminated.

On the other hand, if you suggested defining "terrorism" as "A violent criminal act for the purpose of forcing political change," that would be much more acceptable to me. If you went so far as "A violent criminal act for the purpose of forcing political change unrelated to the law violated" I'd be even happier.

[chillzero]

Perhaps that could be a simple definition of terrorism? "A criminal act for the purpose of forcing political change".

Then you need to define "forcing political change", as many 'terrorists' claim to be acting merely to raise public awareness - laying the groundwork before such a political change can be implemented. Definitions such as you suggest make terrorists out of 'Fathers for Justice', or people like Rosa Parks, the Pankhursts, anyone who has been handcuffed or arrested at demonstrations that become breaches of the peace - let alone the all out riots.

[drkitten]

What's 'extremist'? Who decides? How is it decided?

The same way any other question of fact is decided in a criminal manner. The prosecution and defense present evidence and the jury makes a decision based on their assessment.

How is it decided that your purpose in promoting or adapting an extremist belief system is to facilitate ideologically-based violence?

The jury finds it so.

If one Pentecostal Church decides to blow something up 'in the name of Jesus', does that make Pentecostalism an extremist belief system for the purpose, etc., etc.?

"Pentecostalism" isn't on trial. Individual Pentalcostalists are. If you're a member of that particular church and you have been active in promoting that particular flavor of Pentecostalism, it will be much easier for the prosecution to tie you in than if the best they can do is wave some random clippings about an individual nut-case four states away.

This is no worse a problem than anything else in criminal law. If you get busted for fraud, the cops have to show that you "intentionally" misreprested something "for the purpose of inducing the other person to act." How is the jury supposed to peer into your soul and distinguish intentional misrepresentation from honest mistakes, or distinguish between your lying-to-cover-your-ass vs. lying-to-induce? Notwithstanding, this is a routine judgement that no one has a problem making....

[Dave Rogers]

If one Pentecostal Church decides to blow something up 'in the name of Jesus', does that make Pentecostalism an extremist belief system for the purpose, etc., etc.?

I think you have to read the whole sentence using the logical AND operator rather than the logical OR operator:

[the process of adapting or promoting an extremist belief system] AND [for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence] AND [to advance political, religious, or social change]

In other words, people who subsequently join the Pentecostal Church to advance political, religious or social change, but who do not facilitate ideologically-based violence in doing so, are not covered by the law.

I suspect that the conspiracy theorists think they see a law that refers to,

[the process of adapting or promoting an extremist belief system] OR [for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence] OR [to advance political, religious, or social change]

which is of course a completely different matter; but that's not the correct interpretation.

Dave

[Safe-Keeper]

I love the 'they don't shut us up because then people would know they're hiding something' argument. Is there precedence for such a claim? If I created a web site tomorrow about some huge classified US military project, would they let it stay there, or would they shut it down and take me in for trial?

[gumboot]

No --- Rosa Park's sitting at the front of the bus was technically a "criminal act." Violating a law as a protest against the law has a long and honorable history that I would hate to see eliminated.

On the other hand, if you suggested defining "terrorism" as "A violent criminal act for the purpose of forcing political change," that would be much more acceptable to me. If you went so far as "A violent criminal act for the purpose of forcing political change unrelated to the law violated" I'd be even happier.


Yes, that would be a pretty good definition. My version was too simple. Interestingly, if you committed a suicide bombing to protest the law against murder would that therefore not constitute terrorism?

[drkitten]

Yes, that would be a pretty good definition. My version was too simple. Interestingly, if you committed a suicide bombing to protest the law against murder would that therefore not constitute terrorism?

Or even if you assassinated someone to protest the law against murder. But I'm actually happy considering this to be a particularly repulsive form of civil disobedience and not "terrorism" per se, esp. since the response by law enforcement would be the same in either case.

[GStan]

History tells us that when police states are implemented they are implemented suddenly, with obvious and undeniable acts, and that once in place they are very obvious both to people inside the state and those outside.

If the USA were a police state, or indeed were it in the process of becoming a police state, it would be unique amongst police states.

While I completely agree that the US is not a police state, I must say, you're flirting with Truther logic with your subtle use of 'first time in history' in support of the argument. ;)

[LastChild]

I would imagine the females that believe we're living in a police state would change their tune after a few days in Saudi Arabia.

Until the US has bearded 'Christain Police' roaming the streets looking for religious offenders I would expect them to basically shut the hell up.

What’s the point here? As long as they're not taking us out to the town square and beheading us we're ok? I as an American will never use a place like Saudi Arabia as a benchmark into whether or not my constitutional rights are being trampled on. The rest of the world needs to use us as a benchmark not the other way around. No it's not ok to look at my mail or listen to my phone calls just because some other place has it worse. If more people then ever are crying wolf about a police state these days maybe it’s because more government officials then ever before are crying the sky is falling with terrorists and they need to secure us.

[cisco]

Troothers sound like me before I knew anything whatsoever about history, government, politics, and world affairs. By definition they can't possibly understand that, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

[GStan]

What’s the point here? As long as they're not taking us out to the town square and beheading us we're ok? I as an American will never use a place like Saudi Arabia as a benchmark into whether or not my constitutional rights are being trampled on. The rest of the world needs to use us as a benchmark not the other way around. No it's not ok to look at my mail or listen to my phone calls just because some other place has it worse. If more people then ever are crying wolf about a police state these days maybe it’s because more government officials then ever before are crying the sky is falling with terrorists and they need to secure us.

Why on earth would someone want to look at your mail or listen to your phone calls, LastChild? Are you secretly consorting with known terrorists?

[CHF]

LastChild,

Of all the civil liberties that you have lost since 9/11, which ones do you miss the most?

I know that in the USA people can still speak out and protest. Is it different in the UK?

[LastChild]

LastChild,

Of all the civil liberties that you have lost since 9/11, which ones do you miss the most?

I know that in the USA people can still speak out and protest. Is it different in the UK?

http://www.aclu.org/interactive/lost/index.html

I'm not in the UK.

[SDC]

"I not in the UK"?? Is "not" a verb where you come from?

I studied in the Soviet Union and Poland in the 1970s. Now, those were police states. Crying "Cheney!" (the up to date version of "wolf!") only cheapens actual infringements on Americans' political rights and freedoms.

Many times, in the past, I would have to listen to ignorant leftist clowns make the old equivalency arguments... Trying to prove that the US and the USSR were two sides of the same coin. Unbelievable; just unbelievable... and obscene. An insult to the survivors of the Soviet gulag and its actual equivalents in the former satellites.

[CHF]

Answer my question, LC: Of all the civil liberties that you have lost since 9/11, which ones do you miss the most?

http://www.aclu.org/interactive/lost/index.html (http://www.aclu.org/interactive/lost/index.html)

Are you on a "no fly" list? Have you been detained? Has your privacy been violated? Has your free speech been restricted? Have you been abused by authority? Have you been racially profiled?

Tell me just how bad things are in the current police state.

Given that we have radical Islamists in the West who are open about their desire to kill us, I'd say our response on the domestic front has been pretty measured.

A lesser society would have closed all mosques, rounded up the Muslims and deported them.

I not in the UK

Yes, you in mom's basement, in UK.

[LastChild]

Answer my question, LC: Of all the civil liberties that you have lost since 9/11, which ones do you miss the most?

Are you on a "no fly" list?

I don't know I don't have a copy.

Have you been detained?

Ever? Yeah.

Has your privacy been violated?

I don't know. Maybe I didn't realize they were there. I have some issues with people having my credit report. Especially since it's not accurate.

Has your free speech been restricted?

Yes. I'm married.

Have you been abused by authority?

See previous answer.

Have you been racially profiled?

Does long hair count?

Tell me just how bad things are in the current police state.

I don't think it is a police state. Yet.

Given that we have radical Islamists in the West who are open about their desire to kill us, I'd say our response on the domestic front has been pretty measured.

That's your opinion. Bend over all you like. It ain't for me. I'll take my chances.

A lesser society would have closed all mosques, rounded up the Muslims and deported them.

Like where?

Yes, you in mom's basement, in UK.

Why do you think I'm in the UK?

Was that an interrogation? Just who are you anyway? lol

[CHF]

Looks like we need a "new investigation" into your marriage, Pd...er I mean LastChild.

It's apparently done more to erode your freedoms than even the fascist NWO "inside job" on 9/11 :rolleyes:

[LastChild]

Looks like we need a "new investigation" into your marriage, Pd...er I mean LastChild.

It's apparently done more to erode your freedoms than even the fascist NWO "inside job" on 9/11 :rolleyes:

Hey... the NWO has got nothing on my old lady.

[twinstead]

What’s the point here? As long as they're not taking us out to the town square and beheading us we're ok? I as an American will never use a place like Saudi Arabia as a benchmark into whether or not my constitutional rights are being trampled on. The rest of the world needs to use us as a benchmark not the other way around. No it's not ok to look at my mail or listen to my phone calls just because some other place has it worse. If more people then ever are crying wolf about a police state these days maybe it’s because more government officials then ever before are crying the sky is falling with terrorists and they need to secure us.

But, if terrorism IS the threat that I believe it is then exactly how do you suppose it is combated? What you have is ZERO historical perspective. During wartime all throughout our history (and the history of just about any democracy, as a matter of fact) there is a conflict between personal freedoms and protecting the nation. My grandfather has in no uncertain terms described the incredibly paranoid atmosphere that existed on the home front during WWII. Spies were imagined under every bed. Every Japanese person was a potential saboteur. 'Secret police' were EVERYWHERE. You couldn't print articles in papers that were critical of the US or supported the enemy.

If they had the technology we do today they would be wiretapping and eavesdropping with abandon, I might add.

To you all this stuff is happening in a vacuum because you don't think terrorism is a threat. Christ, you think the US government perpetrated 911 themselves. OF COURSE you think every single thing done by the government domestically to try to find terrorists before they act is one more thing heading down towards a police state.

Does it need watching? Yes. Is it wrong to bring it to the government's attention when you think they're going too far? No.

Does your reaction show a gross inability to view things in context and with any perspective when knee jerking responses to everything the government does? You bet.

[LastChild]

Spies were imagined under every bed.

Every Japanese person was a potential saboteur.

Secret police' were EVERYWHERE.

You couldn't print articles in papers that were critical of the US or supported the enemy.

Was that all warranted or just what you call "incredibly paranoid"? Do we learn?

[CHF]

Was that all warranted or just what you call "incredibly paranoid"? Do we learn?

Has the Arab-American population been rounded up and interned in detention camps?

If not, then yes - we've learned.

[Newtons Bit]

Yes. I'm married.

That's probably the source of most of your lost freedoms. Women are ebil. :boxedin:

[LastChild]

Has the Arab-American population been rounded up and interned in detention camps?

If not, then yes - we've learned.

Have we?

http://www.amnesty.ca/campaigns/no_exceptions/images/guantanamo/guantanamo_action.jpg

[SDC]

And that is being done to which American citizens, where?

Like it or not countries everywhere distinguish citizens' rights from others'. What is being done which is deplorable is on a very small scale. To equate it with what was done with the Japanese in the US in WW2 is silly.

[twinstead]

Was that all warranted or just what you call "incredibly paranoid"? Do we learn?

Depends on if you think we went to war against the Axis powers for no reason due to a false flag event. And, yes, I was told that much of it was paranoid and unnecessary, and some of it was deadly serious stuff and a totally separate shadow war being fought right here in the US between the Axis and Allies.

Only the future will tell if what we are having to deal with now was 'worth it' in the long run, but as far as WWII goes, the Allies won the war. Personal freedoms were restored. Rock and Roll was created. You tell me--was it worth it?

[Patriot4life]

Has the Arab-American population been rounded up and interned in detention camps?

If not, then yes - we've learned.

Here is a excerpt from testimony before the senate judiciary committe

"Perhaps the most dramatic example of unwarranted secrecy has been the government's secret arrest and deportation of hundreds of Muslim and Arab immigrants after September 11. The Justice Department refused to identify the detainees, arguing that to do so might jeopardize national security and tip its hand to terrorists. The secrecy was alarming and, after our repeated requests for basic information about the detainees were denied, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit seeking names under the Freedom of Information Act.

Then, in a further effort to deny information to the public and press, the Justice Department closed all immigration hearings involving the September 11 detainees. Twice more, the ACLU went to court - with lawsuits arguing that transparency and accountability are essential to the workings of democracy. In an eloquent decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati unanimously declared that secret deportation hearings were unlawful. ""A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the framers of our Constitution,"" Judge Damon Keith wrote. He further noted that ""democracy dies behind closed doors.""

That was a clear victory for civil liberties and stands today, as the government chose not to seek Supreme Court review in that case. However, in the second lawsuit, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia sided with the government's position in a 2-1 ruling. The Supreme Court has declined to hear that case.

The ACLU's actions, however, have not been limited to the legal arena. Concerned that the secret hearings were a cover for civil liberties abuses, we initiated an ambitious effort to identify the people affected. We sent letters to the U.S.-based consulates and embassies of ten countries offering legal assistance to innocent people caught up in the government's crackdown on terrorism.

Then in the spring of 2002, the ACLU extended its investigations abroad. Working with the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), we located 21 detainees who had been forcibly removed to Pakistan, or who had left the U.S. voluntarily to avoid indefinite detentions. The interviews were heart-breaking. Before their detentions, these people were indistinguishable from previous generations of immigrants who had come to our shores. They had been salesmen, housewives, and cab drivers with children and homes in America, grateful to be in a country where they could achieve a better life and live in freedom.

Their detention put an end to all that. They described the anxiety-ridden days, which turned into weeks, and then into months - culminating in deportation. Few had been charged with crimes, and many had been deprived of access to counsel. In some cases, the U.S. government ignored the citizenship rights of spouses or even children born in this country. Back in Pakistan, these American children, unable to speak the local language, were miserable and failing at school. The plight of these families was featured on CNN, National Public Radio and on the front page of The New York Times.

The ACLU's concerns about the treatment of September 11 detainees were vindicated by a highly critical report released this year by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Justice, finding that detainees were effectively denied access to counsel and languished in jail for months without legal justification. Excessive secrecy clearly contributed to the abuse of the rights of hundreds of Arab and Muslim immigrants and visitors. More sunlight could have prevented many of those abuses from taking place"

So apparently the answer to your question is "YES", which would clearly produce an answer to the second part of your statement

[Patriot4life]

sorry here is the link where I got the qouted text

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/16946leg20031118.html

[GStan]

Here is a excerpt from testimony before the senate judiciary committe

"Perhaps the most dramatic example of unwarranted secrecy has been the government's secret arrest and deportation of hundreds of Muslim and Arab immigrants after September 11. <snip>

So apparently the answer to your question is "YES", which would clearly produce an answer to the second part of your statement

How is the answer yes? Deportation of a few hundred suspected terrorists, or terror supporters, is not a fair comparison to the detainment of many thousands of Japanese immigrants. Additionally, if I am reading your example correctly, the ACLU won and the evil secret government lost these cases. It seems as though your example supports a 'NO' answer to CHF's question and supports the assertion that we have learned.

[Hans]

Were these actual American citizens or illegals?

[ddt]

And that is being done to which American citizens, where?

Like it or not countries everywhere distinguish citizens' rights from others'. What is being done which is deplorable is on a very small scale. To equate it with what was done with the Japanese in the US in WW2 is silly.

And what about non-American citizens? Like the case of Khalid el-Masri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Masri), a German citizen who was kidnapped by the CIA at the Macedonian border, flown to Afghanistan, tortured there, and five months later dumped without any money in Albania?

Or the hundreds of other "extrajudicial prisoners" or "ghost detainees" whose names aren't even known?

If those are only deplorable individual cases, why doesn't the US govt. admit its errors in those cases and reimburse the victims generously? Why doesn't the US govt. hold the ones perpetrating these acts accountable?

[Ateius]

While such actions are appalling, a police state would be doing that to its own citizens.


If I may paraphrase a stand-up's routine (sadly, I cannot recall the comedian's name):

"The behaviour of the police these days is just appalling! Just yesterday, after I told an NYPD officer that he and all his friends were evil shills paid off by the government to ignore the deaths of thousands, he raised his voice at me and said a rude thing! And when I asked him for a bite of his donut, he brushed off all the sprinkles first!"

-Truther in New York

[ktesibios]

Were these actual American citizens or illegals?

If the government refused even to identify who they had rounded up, how exactly could you tell if they were citizens, resident aliens or here illegally?

[Myriad]

Let's try a sort of hypothetical benchmark test case, and see how it measures up in people's eyes against present-day police states, the current U.S., or some near-future U.S. that we're on a "slippery slope" toward.

A U.S. President proposes to Congress that the term of office of the Presidency (and of Senators as well) be extended to lifetime.

Newspapers in the capital publish vehement condemnations of this suggestion, and of various other apparent attempts by the President to abrogate the Bill of Rights. They accuse the President of being a power-hungry would-be tyrant. Though these publications do not advocate violence or otherwise break any existing laws, the administration rams a law through Congress making such accusations against the government illegal. When liberal newspapers continue their protests, most are shut down. Editors who dare to continue protesting in print are arrested under the new law, and imprisoned. An editor dies in prison, "awaiting trial."

Is this scenario...

- Typical of a police state?

- Something that, today, could easily happen in foreign countries (allowing for differences in the names and exact functions of the various components of the government) but not in the U.S.?

- Something that could easily happen in the U.S. in the near future (say, within 10 years)?

- Something that could never happen in the U.S.?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Ateius]

I think in that scenario you'd get the entire civilian population up in arms (literally, in some cases). I sure wouldn't stand for it.

ETA: I'd call it option 2. It probably could (and likely has) happened in other nations, but I just don't see the people of the United States taking something like that (life terms in office?) lying down.

[Hans]

In answer to Myriad's scenario

In 1787 term limits were discussed and I believe Hamilton wanted lifetime terms for Senators - not sure about the POTUS however. Didn't Washington reject attempts to do so?

Edited to add a bit on Hamilton's plan

Hamilton's Plan

Unsatisfied with the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan. It also was known as the British Plan, because of its resemblance to the British system of government.[3] In his plan, Hamilton advocated getting rid of state sovereignty.[3] The plan featured a bicameral legislature, the lower house elected by the people for three years. The upper house would be elected by electors chosen by the people and would serve for life.[3] The plan also gave the Governor, an executive elected by electors for a life-term of service, an absolute veto over bills.[3] State governors would be appointed by the national legislature,[3] and the national legislature had veto power over any state legislation.[3]

Hamilton presented his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787.[3] The plan was well received as a well-thought-out plan, but it was given very little consideration because it resembled the British system too closely.[3]


From the evil wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention

[MolBasser]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

MolBasser

[MolBasser]

You don't have to think we are or are going to a "police state" to be POed that the gubmint is taking freedom.

MolBasser

[Yalius]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

MolBasser

What makes some people think that spouting this has any weight at all? Absolute liberty with no safety is as asinine as absolute safety with no liberty. There can be differing opinions on where the "best" balance between the two is struck; a person who prefers greater safety at the expense of his or her personal liberty has just as much legitimacy as a person with the opposite view. And if the preference of safety over liberty is more prevalent in a particular society, well, why should that society be considered worse than others?

[WildCat]

Were these actual American citizens or illegals?
Illegals.

[WildCat]

What makes some people think that spouting this has any weight at all? Absolute liberty with no safety is as asinine as absolute safety with no liberty.
Note Ben said essential liberty, not any old liberty.

[WildCat]

If the government refused even to identify who they had rounded up,
Have they?

[Alt+F4]

I as an American will never use a place like Saudi Arabia as a benchmark into whether or not my constitutional rights are being trampled on.

I'm an American too. Might you explain how your or my Constitutional rights are being trampled on?

[Hans]

Illegals.

Thanks Wildcat

That is what I suspected. I have no problem with the US removing illlegals who might poise a threat.

[Yalius]

Note Ben said essential liberty, not any old liberty.

Yes, yes, that was my point. The balancing of essential liberty versus necessary safety was the entire point of my post, that people can have differing opinions as to the proper balance with neither one being a raving fascist or a nutball anarchist. But that quote is trotted out every time there is the most inconsequential restriction placed on peoples liberties, essential or not.

[Hans]

What is the context of that quote, when did he say it and was it a stand alone comment or amongst a longer documents?

I too have seem it thrown up but never the cite to its "origin".

Ahhh answered my own question:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

[rwguinn]

What is the context of that quote, when did he say it and was it a stand alone comment or amongst a longer documents?

I too have seem it thrown up but never the cite to its "origin".

Ahhh answered my own question:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
<<snip......."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Or my favorite:
"Freedom * security=Constant. Unfortunately, that constant is different for every individual" Larry Niven

[Alt+F4]

The plight of these families was featured on CNN, National Public Radio and on the front page of The New York Times.

Wow the United States stinks as a police state!

[Myriad]

Let's try a sort of hypothetical benchmark test case, and see how it measures up in people's eyes against present-day police states, the current U.S., or some near-future U.S. that we're on a "slippery slope" toward.

A U.S. President proposes to Congress that the term of office of the Presidency (and of Senators as well) be extended to lifetime.

Newspapers in the capital publish vehement condemnations of this suggestion, and of various other apparent attempts by the President to abrogate the Bill of Rights. They accuse the President of being a power-hungry would-be tyrant. Though these publications do not advocate violence or otherwise break any existing laws, the administration rams a law through Congress making such accusations against the government illegal. When liberal newspapers continue their protests, most are shut down. Editors who dare to continue protesting in print are arrested under the new law, and imprisoned. An editor dies in prison, "awaiting trial."

Is this scenario...

- Typical of a police state?

- Something that, today, could easily happen in foreign countries (allowing for differences in the names and exact functions of the various components of the government) but not in the U.S.?

- Something that could easily happen in the U.S. in the near future (say, within 10 years)?

- Something that could never happen in the U.S.?

Respectfully,
Myriad

In answer to Myriad's scenario

In 1787 term limits were discussed and I believe Hamilton wanted lifetime terms for Senators - not sure about the POTUS however. Didn't Washington reject attempts to do so?

Edited to add a bit on Hamilton's plan

Hamilton's Plan

Unsatisfied with the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan, Alexander Hamilton proposed his own plan. It also was known as the British Plan, because of its resemblance to the British system of government.[3] In his plan, Hamilton advocated getting rid of state sovereignty.[3] The plan featured a bicameral legislature, the lower house elected by the people for three years. The upper house would be elected by electors chosen by the people and would serve for life.[3] The plan also gave the Governor, an executive elected by electors for a life-term of service, an absolute veto over bills.[3] State governors would be appointed by the national legislature,[3] and the national legislature had veto power over any state legislation.[3]

Hamilton presented his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787.[3] The plan was well received as a well-thought-out plan, but it was given very little consideration because it resembled the British system too closely.[3]


From the evil wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention


You're close, Hans.

The entire scenario, with the exception of one error due to my faulty memory, did happen in the U.S.

The President was John Adams.

The capital city was Philadelphia.

The new law was the Sedition Act of 1789.

Newspapers were shut down and editors arrested.

The editor who died was Benjamin Franklin Bache, a grandson of Benjamin Franklin and editor of the Aurora. However, I misremembered: he died under charges and awaiting trial (a conspiracist would say: allegedly of yellow fever, but it almost certainly was yellow fever which was epidemic at the time), but he was not in prison when he died.

Most newspapers then were much like blogs today: the editor wrote editorials, and the rest of the paper was devoted to letters to the editor from readers (aka correspondents, literally people who corresponded with the paper by letter, which is where the more recent usage of "news correspondents," meaning reporters, came from). Published correspondence sometimes contained personal accounts of events but more usually expressed opinions and commented on previous editorials and comments.

Anyhow, the point is that anyone who thinks that security against perceived foreign threats versus constitutional rights and civil liberties is a new issue in U.S. politics, or only goes back as far as WWII Japanese-American internment camps, or has always trended continuously in only one direction toward a "police state," is ignorant of, or misinformed about, U.S. history.

Link to a book that is mostly a massive compilation of primary sources, here (http://www.amazon.com/American-Aurora-Democratic-Republican-Suppressed-Beginnings/dp/0312194374).

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Hans]

Thanks Myriad

I know I'd heard of it before but couldn't remember it exactly.

Off to read about the sedition act....

The Sedition Act (official title: An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801.

Man the truth movement would be in big trouble is that one was still in force - glad its NOT in force by the way.

[LastChild]

I'm an American too. Might you explain how your or my Constitutional rights are being trampled on?


http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Jan_ad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[twinstead]

LC, the discussion of the Sedition Act above is a PERFECT example of temporary limits on rights. The suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War is another.

I think you're overreacting. You think we're on a slippery slope to a police state. Exactly how much time needs to elapse before either one of us can declare victory?

[LastChild]

LC, the discussion of the Sedition Act above is a PERFECT example of temporary limits on rights. The suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War is another.

I think you're overreacting. You think we're on a slippery slope to a police state. Exactly how much time needs to elapse before either one of us can declare victory?

Declare victory? What do you mean take a rest?