Poll: Is the USA becoming a police state?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

TheStatutoryApe:

The NDAA is the national military budget. The US military does not exist (at least none of them get paid or get budget allowances save perhaps the Navy and Airforce) unless congress specifically authorizes the expenditures. The NDAA has been passed yearly since the 70's.

Yes.

This year, the 2012 one, there was a clause added to the NDAA that allowed the executive branch to detain terror suspects indefinably without trial. It's pretty clearly unconstitutional. Obama did threaten to veto it, but he really couldn't without completely defending the entire military, so he just wrote a signing statement saying he would never use that power. Of course, it's law now, so even if he holds to that, any future president might use that power. It's pretty scary.

Yosarian2:
Yes.

This year, the 2012 one, there was a clause added to the NDAA that allowed the executive branch to detain terror suspects indefinably without trial. It's pretty clearly unconstitutional. Obama did threaten to veto it, but he really couldn't without completely defending the entire military, so he just wrote a signing statement saying he would never use that power. Of course, it's law now, so even if he holds to that, any future president might use that power. It's pretty scary.

There were cases going before the courts arguing that the AUMF does not grant as broad of authority as the President's Admin was claiming it did. A section was added to the NDAA to revise the AUMF by explicitly stating that the President has authority given by congress to act in certain situations where that authority was contentious. Particularly in cases where suspects were apprehended on US soil or happened to be US citizens. It was basically political flame bait since these issues have already been decided by the SCOTUS. The AUMF, as amended by the sections in the NDAA, does not give the capacity to detain suspects indefinitely without trial and even if it tried the SCOTUS ruled on that about six years ago.

If your conservative Supreme Court is ruling against your wiretaps, detentions, ect then your police state isn't a very successful one.

Edit: Note that the authority to militarily detain persons on US soil and who were US citizens was granted as allowable under specific conditions by the SCOTUS in 1945 (see: Ex Parte Quirin). The NDAA does not grant it, it has officially existed for most of a century.

Oh yeah it's a real police state, cops on every corner, people arrested over any tiny misdemeanor, all elections canceled and we have no freedom....no it isn't where the hell did you even get that idea?

erttheking:
Oh yeah it's a real police state, cops on every corner, people arrested over any tiny misdemeanor, all elections canceled and we have no freedom....no it isn't where the hell did you even get that idea?

The scary thing is that half of the things on that list are true.

Yosarian2:
Yes.

This year, the 2012 one, there was a clause added to the NDAA that allowed the executive branch to detain terror suspects indefinably without trial. It's pretty clearly unconstitutional. Obama did threaten to veto it, but he really couldn't without completely defending the entire military, so he just wrote a signing statement saying he would never use that power. Of course, it's law now, so even if he holds to that, any future president might use that power. It's pretty scary.

I feel if it were as "clearly" unconstitutional as you think it was, the ACLU and other big organizations who watch for this stuff would have been all over it and gotten it swiftly taken care of by the Supreme Court. If I remember correctly, the wording specifically had to do with non-US citizens in a time of war, as in POWs, as in people we sort of already detain indefinitely in the first place.

PercyBoleyn:

erttheking:
Oh yeah it's a real police state, cops on every corner, people arrested over any tiny misdemeanor, all elections canceled and we have no freedom....no it isn't where the hell did you even get that idea?

The scary thing is that half of the things on that list are true.

No they aren't. There aren't cops on every corner and elections still happen. Arrests over every tiny misdemeanor? Maybe depending on where you live, but even then that's not half. One half of three is one point five, there is only one thing on that list that is true and it's not true everywhere so I feel like calling it half of a point. America isn't a police state, 1984 is a police state, people you honestly think that we are in a police state really is spoiled.

erttheking:

PercyBoleyn:

erttheking:
Oh yeah it's a real police state, cops on every corner, people arrested over any tiny misdemeanor, all elections canceled and we have no freedom....no it isn't where the hell did you even get that idea?

The scary thing is that half of the things on that list are true.

No they aren't. There aren't cops on every corner and elections still happen. Arrests over every tiny misdemeanor? Maybe depending on where you live, but even then that's not half. One half of three is one point five, there is only one thing on that list that is true and it's not true everywhere so I feel like calling it half of a point. America isn't a police state, 1984 is a police state, people you honestly think that we are in a police state really is spoiled.

I'd generally agree with that, unless the people claiming the US to be a police state are being particularly targeted by the police for some reason. From their PoV, the claim would not be unreasonable.

TheStatutoryApe:
*snip*

My arguments are based on legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president of the United States, and name calling doesn't prove anything except that you're being more belligerent.

Pumpkin_Eater:

TheStatutoryApe:
*snip*

My arguments are based on legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president of the United States, and name calling doesn't prove anything except that you're being more belligerent.

Your arguments are based on chicken little observations of what could theoretically happen so long as the law is interpreted in a vacuum without regard to precedents already set by The Supreme Fucking Court. The decisions of The Supreme Court are the final and definitive law and neither Congress nor the President can change that. And that is what my arguments are based on. Did you even read the actual cases that I linked for you?

Lilani:
I feel if it were as "clearly" unconstitutional as you think it was, the ACLU and other big organizations who watch for this stuff would have been all over it and gotten it swiftly taken care of by the Supreme Court. If I remember correctly, the wording specifically had to do with non-US citizens in a time of war, as in POWs, as in people we sort of already detain indefinitely in the first place.

As I noted in my posts the hypothetical concerns surrounding the particular legislation have already been taken care of by The Supreme Court though orgs like the ACLU have had things to say about it. And, yes, by current law (even before this was passed) if any person were to be working for an "enemy" with which the US is at war and be taken into custody, regardless of being on US soil or even a US citizen, they could be remanded to the custody of the Armed Forces. They must then be charged, given access to a lawyer, and given opportunity to refute the charges against them before a competent court. If the court finds that the charges have merit they are then held as POWs pursuant to the standard set by the Geneva Conventions. A sticking point is the term "indefinite". Justice Souter took issue with it in the Hamdi v Rumsfeld case and said that one may not be held "indefinitely" as the Geneva Conventions specifically stipulate an end to detention with the "cessation of hostilities". So legality sort of depends on what definition of "indefinite" one uses.

On an interesting note, Hamdi v Rumsfeld was decided six to three. The only reason it was not eight to one was because while Justice Thomas dissented in favour of the government Justices Scalia and Stevens dissented specifically to say that they believed the government had no right to militarily detain citizens at all what so ever, that this is why we have a provision in the constitution for dealing with treason. Yet another reason why, despite his politics, I love Scalia.

TheStatutoryApe:

Yosarian2:
Yes.

This year, the 2012 one, there was a clause added to the NDAA that allowed the executive branch to detain terror suspects indefinably without trial. It's pretty clearly unconstitutional. Obama did threaten to veto it, but he really couldn't without completely defending the entire military, so he just wrote a signing statement saying he would never use that power. Of course, it's law now, so even if he holds to that, any future president might use that power. It's pretty scary.

There were cases going before the courts arguing that the AUMF does not grant as broad of authority as the President's Admin was claiming it did. A section was added to the NDAA to revise the AUMF by explicitly stating that the President has authority given by congress to act in certain situations where that authority was contentious. Particularly in cases where suspects were apprehended on US soil or happened to be US citizens. It was basically political flame bait since these issues have already been decided by the SCOTUS. The AUMF, as amended by the sections in the NDAA, does not give the capacity to detain suspects indefinitely without trial and even if it tried the SCOTUS ruled on that about six years ago.

If your conservative Supreme Court is ruling against your wiretaps, detentions, ect then your police state isn't a very successful one.

The problem is, the Supreme Court only gets to rule on things if they find out about them. Part of the new security state is that everything is classified, everything is secret. Things like wiretaps and black prisons in Eastern Europe were kept secret for years before the public found out about them.

If the President detains someone for years, and the very fact of the detention is kept secret, how does the Supreme Court ever get to rule on it?

Not to mention the fact that terror suspects can be tried by military tribunals under NDAA, which is nearly as bad.

Lilani:

Yosarian2:
Yes.

This year, the 2012 one, there was a clause added to the NDAA that allowed the executive branch to detain terror suspects indefinably without trial. It's pretty clearly unconstitutional. Obama did threaten to veto it, but he really couldn't without completely defending the entire military, so he just wrote a signing statement saying he would never use that power. Of course, it's law now, so even if he holds to that, any future president might use that power. It's pretty scary.

I feel if it were as "clearly" unconstitutional as you think it was, the ACLU and other big organizations who watch for this stuff would have been all over it and gotten it swiftly taken care of by the Supreme Court. If I remember correctly, the wording specifically had to do with non-US citizens in a time of war, as in POWs, as in people we sort of already detain indefinitely in the first place.

Uh, the ACLU is all over it. From their website:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

Now, the ACLU can't actually sue the government over it until they have an actual case of it being used against someone to try in court; you can't try a law in a vacuum, you need a test case.

Yosarian2:
The problem is, the Supreme Court only gets to rule on things if they find out about them. Part of the new security state is that everything is classified, everything is secret. Things like wiretaps and black prisons in Eastern Europe were kept secret for years before the public found out about them.

If the President detains someone for years, and the very fact of the detention is kept secret, how does the Supreme Court ever get to rule on it?

A) This is not the "new security state", it is the way things have always been. Its just that technology and such have gotten to the point that even the government can hardly keep a secret so we are actually hearing about these things now. There is also FOIA and courts who wont let the government get away with saying everything is secret.

B) If it's all secret and nobody, including the courts, are going to hear about it then what does the law have to do with anything? If that's the case then it doesn't have to be legal, no law necessary to grant the authority, it just happens. Regardless, despite the Bush Admin trying to keep the detentions of Hamdi and Padilla under wraps both of them wound up obtaining habeas corpus.

Not to mention the fact that terror suspects can be tried by military tribunals under NDAA, which is nearly as bad.

With the AUMF (That's what is at work here, the NDAA only revised it) the President has authority to militarily detain persons involved in, or involved with those responsible for, the 9/11 attacks. Not any terrorist suspect. And the detention by military and review by military tribunal is pursuant to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of Prisoners of War. That's preexisting standard of international law. It did not come about due to the AUMF or the NDAA.

The Gnome King:

Zachary Tarlow:
I say it is because of all the wars and stuff like that.

We're not there yet but it is getting worse. Racial profiling allowed now in AZ, our own police forces renting drones to spy on the populace; reduced privacy for our communications, etc.

Our civil liberties were on an upswing until 9/11 but the gov't used that debacle as an excuse to set civil rights back by 50 years or more in this country.

This basically sums up my opinions.
While the majority blindly look away and say "America? A police state?" as they lose more and more liberty only a few people try to do anything to stop it and everyone thinks they're crazy.
I seriously consider fleeing the country before the borders are closed.

Yes, and it's getting worse, but people will continue to deny it until their damn doors are slammed in by Feds or marines or solders or whatever for being a 'terrorist sympathizer' for whatever bs reason. No more posse commentates, American's can legally be killed now if they're linked to 'terrorist' in anyway, they can legally spy on what you do now (even all they've been doing it for a while) they can legally search and check you without warrants, they have roving TSA check points and other assorted crap. I could go on, but I'm sure people can do their own research, in fact I hope they do. Might as well use the net while we still have it. Even if it's not a full blown police state yet, things are clearly getting ready for it. All in the name of 'safety'.

"He who would give up freedom for security deserves neither"
- Benjamin Franklin

Well let me see, we do have some problems with racism in the police force and there is need to amend the training methods. Are we becoming anything remotely resembling a police state?

NO!! Do a little research as to what a police state is before you make a post like that, would you kindly?

Just to further poke at the content-free OP, "the wars" are not why America is definitely getting more police stateish. America's never been particularly shy in the war department; however, these kinds of measures have never been enacted.

It's a power grab in the name of keeping people safe from terrorists.

Tyler Perry:
Just to further poke at the content-free OP, "the wars" are not why America is definitely getting more police stateish. America's never been particularly shy in the war department; however, these kinds of measures have never been enacted.

Er, that's not entirely true. They haven't been around for a while, but the US has had really horrible laws in the name of safety from, say, communists or nazis or the nation of Japan in the past.

TheStatutoryApe:

A) This is not the "new security state", it is the way things have always been.

No, it's not.

The fact that you can even say that is a bad sign of just how far downhill things have gone.

Wiretaps without court order have been illegal since Nixon. Detaining American citizens without trial has always been illegal, and that's happened too. Searching or x-raying every single person who gets on an air plane is new. More things are classified now then ever before, and it's snowballing.

We almost lost our democracy to the security state during the cold war. We came close to the brink several times; it was President Eisenhower who warned about the military-industrial complex. We were just starting to recover from that, then 9/11 happened, and things quickly became worse then they had ever been.

You can't have a democracy where the people don't know what the govenrment is doing in their name; how can a govenrment be accountable to it's people if the people don't know what the govenrment is doing? Government secrecy might at first be used for actual military or security reasons, but very soon it changes over to the government just keeping things secret because they're embarrassing or illegal. And the culture of secrecy tends to make those who are a part of it not listen to those who are not; this was part of the reason that Kissinger ignored the anti-Vietnam protestors for so long, because he thought his security clearance meant that he understood things that they did not. It's a nasty cycle, and it inevitably leads to bad and un-democratic government.

Yosarian2:

TheStatutoryApe:

A) This is not the "new security state", it is the way things have always been.

No, it's not.

The fact that you can even say that is a bad sign of just how far downhill things have gone.

Wiretaps without court order have been illegal since Nixon. Detaining American citizens without trial has always been illegal, and that's happened too. Searching or x-raying every single person who gets on an air plane is new. More things are classified now then ever before, and it's snowballing.

We almost lost our democracy to the security state during the cold war. We came close to the brink several times; it was President Eisenhower who warned about the military-industrial complex. We were just starting to recover from that, then 9/11 happened, and things quickly became worse then they had ever been.

You can't have a democracy where the people don't know what the govenrment is doing in their name; how can a govenrment be accountable to it's people if the people don't know what the govenrment is doing? Government secrecy might at first be used for actual military or security reasons, but very soon it changes over to the government just keeping things secret because they're embarrassing or illegal. And the culture of secrecy tends to make those who are a part of it not listen to those who are not; this was part of the reason that Kissinger ignored the anti-Vietnam protestors for so long, because he thought his security clearance meant that he understood things that they did not. It's a nasty cycle, and it inevitably leads to bad and un-democratic government.

The scale of the US intelligence community is truly awe inspiring

Yosarian2:

TheStatutoryApe:

A) This is not the "new security state", it is the way things have always been.

No, it's not.

The fact that you can even say that is a bad sign of just how far downhill things have gone.

Wiretaps without court order have been illegal since Nixon. Detaining American citizens without trial has always been illegal, and that's happened too. Searching or x-raying every single person who gets on an air plane is new. More things are classified now then ever before, and it's snowballing.

We almost lost our democracy to the security state during the cold war. We came close to the brink several times; it was President Eisenhower who warned about the military-industrial complex. We were just starting to recover from that, then 9/11 happened, and things quickly became worse then they had ever been.

You can't have a democracy where the people don't know what the govenrment is doing in their name; how can a govenrment be accountable to it's people if the people don't know what the govenrment is doing? Government secrecy might at first be used for actual military or security reasons, but very soon it changes over to the government just keeping things secret because they're embarrassing or illegal. And the culture of secrecy tends to make those who are a part of it not listen to those who are not; this was part of the reason that Kissinger ignored the anti-Vietnam protestors for so long, because he thought his security clearance meant that he understood things that they did not. It's a nasty cycle, and it inevitably leads to bad and un-democratic government.

I was referring to your complaint of government secrecy. And what I said, that it is the way it has always been, is entirely true. That is the reason for FOIA, which the fed has been arguing vociferously against in the Supreme Court since 1973, and even since the FOIA we have had consistent complaints about the government supplying documents with near black block redaction because they want to keep everything secret. It's not new. The only new thing is the technology and accessibility of information which allows us to know about these things despite the government trying to keep them secret. Hell, a Secret Service Agent can't even pick up a hooker in Columbia without it becoming a national headline.

Your post completely ignores the posts I have already made. The Supreme Court has responded to, and knocked down, everything you mentioned save airport security (which you exaggerate). As I already noted, if your conservative packed Supreme Court is telling you that you can't do these things at every turn then your police state isn't very successful.

And "worse then they had ever been" is absolute bull pucky. How you can even say that after referencing a period in history when certain political parties were outlawed, people who belonged to them were being spied on and arrested, government employees were fired officially for being "communists", people from certain countries were not even allowed to be citizens, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee was publicly putting people on trial for their political beliefs, the Alien and Sedition Acts were in force, ect ect ect....? You're seriously trying to tell me that wasn't as bad as now?

Huh.

Obama shows signs of being vertebrate life-form, experts shocked

President Obama issued an order Tuesday night laying out broad new waivers that allow U.S. law enforcement agencies to retain custody of al-Qaeda terrorism suspects rather than turn them over to the military.

The new waivers are Obama's response to a law passed by Congress last year that requires that alleged al-Qaeda terrorists who are not U.S. citizens be held in military custody rather than being processed through the civilian court system. Key GOP senators said Tuesday night that the president's measures raised "significant concerns," and they vowed to hold a hearing to scrutinize them.

Didn't seee that coming.

(Captcha: "Diddly Squat".)

we have had economic slavery in this country for years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njSV5LtVmR4&feature=share

you have been conditioned to believe you are not conditioned and anyone who thinks differently is a dirty socialist

johnstamos:
think again
http://www.trueactivist.com/department-of-homeland-security-buying-up-enough-ammo-to-wage-seven-year-war-against-the-american-people/

Hey, I asked you to give me answers in your other thread. You gonna get around to that? Hit me with your best shot. Answer those questions and I might change my mind. If you're going to tell people they should invest in a batshit crazy idea, the least you can do is make the effort to convince us it's worth it. At least prove you give enough shits to make us consider giving a few ourselves.

I didn't tell anyone to think anything, I asked what the escapist community thinks. If you want to know know more about it look it up yourself, if not just ignore my post and tell yourself any society beyond monetary slavery is batshit insane.

Also you should try and be less hostile and persistent, I hope you aren't this aggressive in real life.

johnstamos:
I didn't tell anyone to think anything, I asked what the escapist community thinks. If you want to know know more about it look it up yourself, if not just ignore my post and tell yourself any society beyond monetary slavery is batshit insane.

Also you should try and be less hostile and persistent, I hope you aren't this aggressive in real life.

Yes, you asked what the Escapist community thinks, and when you were presented with what some members of the Escapist community thought, you referred to them as ignorant supporters of the police state.

johnstamos:
I didn't tell anyone to think anything, I asked what the escapist community thinks. If you want to know know more about it look it up yourself, if not just ignore my post and tell yourself any society beyond monetary slavery is batshit insane.

Also you should try and be less hostile and persistent, I hope you aren't this aggressive in real life.

You still haven't given me a reason to think the zeitgeist is anything more than a bunch of hot air. Are you saying that you can't answer those questions, then? They're pretty basic questions for what you claim you can accomplish. Where are the raw materials coming from? What happens when we run out? Take over other planets? I'm sure that will go well, the human race: the auto-pilot scavengers of the galaxy. What about crime, as zero crime is an impossibility without brainwashing? What if somebody's desires exceed what the machine-mothers can produce? How can you be certain the need for help won't exceed how many people actually want to do it, considering this is a society with no accountability or basic required input? Just give me something.

johnstamos:
think again
http://www.trueactivist.com/department-of-homeland-security-buying-up-enough-ammo-to-wage-seven-year-war-against-the-american-people/

Question: how did you manage to look at that website and not think "Holy shit, these guys are deluded"? Because no matter how hard I try, if I attempt to believe even one of their stories, I get an uncontrollable urge to smash my head onto my desk.

johnstamos:
think again
http://www.trueactivist.com/department-of-homeland-security-buying-up-enough-ammo-to-wage-seven-year-war-against-the-american-people/

Oh, very well, I'll bite.

Now, not being an expert, I'll have to restrict myself to the obvious, mind.

Firstly, you simply can't take the amount of ammo they have, divide it by the total yearly expenditure of ammunition, and take that as how many years they must be preparing to fight against the US people. The numbers don't go together like that. The soldiers in Iraq do not go through their 70 million a year and wait for the next 70 million, they have much more than that. Or, to put it another way, they may expend 70 million a year, but it takes many more rounds than that to supply an army, it's just that most aren't fired immediately.

On the other hand, yes, it is clearly to be used in a civilian role, but that is so obvious as to be pointless saying.

Secondly, the 10 year thing. Hollow point pistol calibre ammunition and rifle ammunition are designed to do different things, hollow points increase the width but limit the depth of the hole. In war, you don't just use one type of ammunition, true (as an aside, US soldiers are using .308s in Iraq? If true, standardise your weapons better!), but war in Iraq isn't the same as running Homeland Security in the US.

Thirdly, the TSA being the psychopathic brownshirts of the...no.

Fourthly, fuck whoever wrote that bullshit. There are any number of serious problems that need attention, making fucking stupid shit up does nothing but discredit doubters.

johnstamos:
I didn't tell anyone to think anything, I asked what the escapist community thinks. If you want to know know more about it look it up yourself, if not just ignore my post and tell yourself any society beyond monetary slavery is batshit insane.

Also you should try and be less hostile and persistent, I hope you aren't this aggressive in real life.

As a Durdenite I am ashamed of you.

Jus' sayin'

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked