Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-20-2006, 04:54 PM   #1
Yenadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 29
Default Are we living in a police state now?

Hello everyone. I was a longtime member of the MT forums, but moved on long ago. I took a swing through these forums today to post an article I had written for another message board concerning recent events. Remembering some of my old rant buddies from the MT boards, I figured I would post it here as well. The topic of my article is, has America already become a police state?

Firstly, what is the definition of a police state? I took this definition from the allmighty wikipedia
A police state is a state with authority which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, even through violent or arbitrary means if necessary. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism or other harsh means of social control. In a police state the police are not subject to the rule of law in an emergency and there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

Police states do not often refer to themselves in this manner, as the classification is often established by an internal whistle-blower or external critic. The use of term is motivated as a response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's concept of the social contract, human rights, and similar matters.
To paraphrase in my own words (a potential scholarly sin I know), a police state exists when elements of the government behave as if they are above the law, and use violent tactics to quell dissent against their control. So in order for me to make the pro police state argument, I must first demonstrate that police are in fact, illegally abusing their power.

Demonstrating police abuse of power in individual cases would be childs play, as a part of the human condition, abuse will happen. However, a single case does not prove anything, in order for a true police state to exist, abuse would need to be happening on a fairly wide scale. Numbers and statistics would be useful, nearly essential in establishing such an argument, on the other hand, if we do live in a police state, then control of the mass media and scientific institutions is nearly a precondition, so access to such data would either be hard to obtain, or the data itself could be tampered with. So how to provide evidence of police abuse? Well, all that I have available to offer to you today is semi anecdotal evidence, IE footage of police abuse taking place. While a single proven incident of police brutality means little, enough incidents can demonstrate a pattern and that is what I intend to do here.

We will start first with abuse of political protesters. This is the famous Elizabeth Ritter case. There used to be better video available of this incident, however, this is the only one I was able to find. The raw footage that used to be available in particular was very interesting, if anyone knows where this went please let me know.Cops shoot protestor and boast about it.

Here we have a video of police with no real provaction using pepper spray nearly indiscriminatly during the same event. Pepper spray.

Here we have a young protestor arrested for an "obscene" sign. It is my opinion that the more likely reason he was arrested is because the cameraman stuck up for his rights to keep the camera rolling. Free speech.

Here is a video of riot cops dispersing a crowd. While what preempted this is difficault to say, it is apparant from the video the police were not in any real emminent danger from the crowd, they simply used overwhelming force to make people scatter. Horns and bullets

Here is another video of police with no visible provaction opening fire on a crowd to disperse them. Pegged in the head.

There are many more videos available on the web concerning police treatment of protesters, please check them out for yourself. I myself have linked only videos that consist mainly of raw footage so that you are better able to determine for yourself. However, there are many documentaries, both short and long, as well as many articles on the subject. I will link a small sampling of these. Firstly, there is Pharaoh's Army , a documentary produced by Indymedia about various tactics and weapons currently in use against civilian protestors.

Lastly I will link to a section of a documentary by Alex jones that expounds more on this matter, particularly the incidents surrounding the WTO in Seattle riots. Seattle WTO documentary


Now having viewed all that, I want you to ask yourself a few questions. Did you notice how the officers were dressed, and the weapons they had at their disposal? How much do riot officers now look like they just literally walked off the set of a scifi movie from the 90's? They present an extremely intidating, menacing visage, and I have to wonder. Is that really neccesary? Is that really what I can expect to see when I exercise my rights? Is that what the model of freedom should look like to the world? These are questions that often trouble me, and I believe will probably trouble you as well.


With the above evidence in mind, a larger question emerges. If there is such abuse going on with protests, is there abuse going on with other, more normal policing situations? The answer is yes, and here is a sampling of the evidence.

Here we have a video made by a group that investigates police abuse, showing what happned to their undercover investigator when he tried to get a complaint form.First Complaint Form Video

Here is a video of an undercover investigation conducted in South Florida, watch how the police behave. This is not simply a few isolated incidents. Undercover complaint

I could go on linking many more videos concerning police abuse, but I feel by now that I have made my point. If you disagree with me, then please by all means do so, but do so with supporting evidence, not a simple carte-blance dismissal. My goal in this request is of course to engage you in seeking out the evidence for yourself, as I feel that is by far the best way to come to an opinion on any matter.

Finally, since this is already a long post, I will finish by pointing you towards the The military Commisions Act, HR 6166, and the amazing power that it has granted to the government. This is really at the heart of living in a police state, and forms the crux of my argument. For those who do not know, HR 6166 has abolished Habeus Corpus , essentially granting the government the right to detain, arrest, try, and execute a person without EVER allowing them legal counsel whatsoever. In essence, they can legally arrest you, give no reason for doing so, try you in front of a MILITARY tribunal, and make you vanish forever. That ladies and gentlemen, is a police state.

The frequent counter argument is that this bill applies only to non U.S. citicenz, this however, is again not true. I will provide my evidence in quotes. Congressman David Wu has stated
by so restricting habeas corpus, this bill does not just apply to enemy aliens. It applies to all Americans because, while the provision on page 93 has the word "alien in it, the provision on page 61 does not have the word alien in it
He is also on the record as having stated
Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.[22]
Still not convinced? It gets worse, even the New York Times objected to this bill, calling it
a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Anthony Romero, Executive Director for the ACLU has stated
The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions
It goes on and on, and it is very hard to deny the serious nature of these statements. I could continue offering evidence for the existence of a present day American Police state, but I have already spent nearly 4 hours on this article and have tired a great deal, I promise I will pick this back up shortly. In conclusion, I hope you will view all this evidence for yourself and make your own conclusions. You need not agree with me, but please do go and check these matters out for yourself, for if there is even a nugget of truth in what I am proposing we are all in deep, deep trouble.
Yenadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 05:53 PM   #2
Wulfhere
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 739
No matter how many documented incidents of police brutality or abuse you can show, it is all meaningless to your arguement unless you can link these brutal acts to the government. In other words, to have any hope at calling the US a police State, you must prove that the Federal Government is behind these brutal acts, and is using the power of the police to further an agenda, not just to show that police are brutal.

Wulf
Wulfhere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 06:01 PM   #3
Yenadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 29
Everything a police officer does is linked to the government, since they ARE the government. I understand your point, and would agree with you where there incidents involving only one or two officers, but many of these incidents involve hundreds of officers following marching orders from on high, how can that not be linked to the government furthering an agenda?
Yenadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 06:10 PM   #4
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Wulfhere
No matter how many documented incidents of police brutality or abuse you can show, it is all meaningless to your arguement unless you can link these brutal acts to the government
Says who? Just because power is decentralized, the role the government plays seems to be what dictates whether it is a police state or not. Heck, it could be an entire nations with strong form governments in each county that operated with extreme control over the people and it could be ap olcie state. Just because there may or may not be a direct order from the center of the Fed is no reason to dismiss the consideration.

Besides, if the government starts tormenting its own citizens, and the higher powers allow it to continue, they are consenting by default. It's one of thier job functions tomaintain accountability of thier subordinates. A police state that occurs because lazy higher ups is no less a police state. Heck the top officials could be bleeding heart liberals and hippies, but if they are clueless as to what goes on and don't show due diligence, it could still become a police state... thanks to ambitious subordinates. (I am not saying we live in ap olice state... although I do think our justice system is crap, and I don't believe that Americans do not enjoy as much freedom relative to some other countries as they used to. I think we have evolved into a nation of wealth, and left "land of the free" for someone else to claim.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 07:15 PM   #5
Brigiid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,879
Send a message via AIM to Brigiid
I'm inclined to believe that it's shoddy policing at the individual or deparment level, moreso than 'marching orders from above'.
__________________
Meh.
Brigiid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 07:20 PM   #6
celedine169
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: S FL
Posts: 774
Welcome to the mix, Yenadil. Good article, well researched. Unfortunately, these acts by police officers are acts of individuals, and without a direct paper trail of orders descending from the DoJ it is impossible to prove a government crackdown, regardless of whether or not it was sanctioned. Since these are the people responsible for prosecuting, no one else is in a better position to know how to evade being caught.
Case in point: Rumsfeld and Bush will never be prosecuted for war crimes, despite ordering soldiers to torture foreign civilians. Everyone knows they did, but they will never be caught because the soldiers who carried out their orders took the heat, like good soldiers. And now Congress is debating how much torture is legal, to cover future uses.
__________________
80 Cleric
Officer of Resolution
celedine169 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 11:01 PM   #7
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Yen
Demonstrating police abuse of power in individual cases would be childs play, as a part of the human condition, abuse will happen. However, a single case does not prove anything, in order for a true police state to exist, abuse would need to be happening on a fairly wide scale. Numbers and statistics would be useful, nearly essential in establishing such an argument, on the other hand, if we do live in a police state, then control of the mass media and scientific institutions is nearly a precondition, so access to such data would either be hard to obtain, or the data itself could be tampered with. So how to provide evidence of police abuse?
Oh I see. We are living in a police state and you would prove it except that because we live in a police state, you can't.

As for your examples of police allegedly using excessive force, here are some other links for you:

WTO "Protestors" rioting.

Neocommunist "anarchists" engaging in "political demonstrations."

More peaceable assembly.

"Petitioning for redress of grievances."

Exercising their right to free speech.

Business owners doing their part to support the "peaceful" demonstrators.

Such constructive demonstrations are sure to ring true with our leaders.

A few comments about these:

1) Let's assume that the police overreacted during these "peaceful demonstrations" and perhaps even violated a few people's constitutional rights. How could you come to the ridiculous conclusion that they react that way in order to keep politicians in office? What convoluted line of reasoning leads you to that end? Do you know why we have all of these pictures and 15,000 more, just of this one event? Any idea why you can find a few hundred home movies on the 'net showing these events? Try not to overthink the answer. It's because everyone has a freaking camera. What happens when we see pictures or movies of police brutality? Does that usually help the politicians in office? Do they win a lot of points when the 6 o'clock news shows a 15-year-old boy being beaten by police? Good for the ol' re-election campaign, eh?

2) Since your article is apparently directed at Bush, need I point out that all of these pictures were snapped in 1999? I skipped all of the pictures I found of police shooting rubber bullets, dragging protestors to jail, using tear gas, and standing off with rioters. You can find the whole gallery here. Did Clinton create the police state or did Bush go back in time and create it?

Originally Posted by Yen
Now having viewed all that, I want you to ask yourself a few questions. Did you notice how the officers were dressed, and the weapons they had at their disposal? How much do riot officers now look like they just literally walked off the set of a scifi movie from the 90's? They present an extremely intidating, menacing visage, and I have to wonder. Is that really neccesary?


You remind me of that Saturday Night Live bit where the reporter asks the Secretary of Defense if it is fair that our military uses superior technology when we fight our enemies. Of course it is necessary! Those guys are outnumbers 10, 20, 50 to 1. They are charged with protecting property and lives from demonstrably violent thugs and they are scared to death. Go ahead, stand on that line, elbow to elbow with a few hundred other officers and face off with 1,000 angry "anarchist" scumbags throwing shit at you and shouting threats. Let's see if you feel like you are being excessive because you are wearing riot gear. Sometimes all these guys can depend on is authority. They need to look big, mean, and scary. They need to look like robots because their very lives are at risk. We have a couple of cops on this board. Ask them how important it is to be intimidating in certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by Yen
The frequent counter argument is that this bill applies only to non U.S. citicenz, this however, is again not true. I will provide my evidence in quotes. Congressman David Wu has stated
Ah yes, a politician said it so that proves it is true. He is purposefully misinterpretting the code. There are two very important definitions in the law:

-Unlawful enemy combatant.
-Alien.

Wu's line of bullshit refers to the determination of unlawful enemy combatants, not aliens. Aliens were defined in section 948a. 948b applies only to aliens, and then goes on to explain how a tribunal will be used to determine unlawful enemy combatant. But 948(B) is limited to aliens by the first line of the section:

Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

It then goes on to explain the use of tribunals to determine who is an unlawful enemy combatant. Notice it says nothing about tribunals determining who is an alien unlawful enemy combatant. The fact that it doesn't mention "alien" in the following paragraphs proves quite the opposite from what Wu claims. This section clearly and purposefully is only discussing aliens. This shit is not exactly hard to figure out. Why do so many people believe what Wu claims? Because they already decided, all they need is someone to quote.

Originally Posted by Yen
Still not convinced? It gets worse, even the New York Times objected to this bill, calling it
Even the New York Times? Wow, that certainly is Nixon going to China isn't it? Next you are going to tell me that objective reporter Michael Moore is on record opposing this law!
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2006, 11:42 PM   #8
Chiteng
Supporter
 
Chiteng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,240
I wish we were. It would make deporting 15 million people much easier.
__________________
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest
Chiteng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2006, 12:29 AM   #9
SupportTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ottawa. AKA, SUCK CENTRAL!
Posts: 3,344
chirst chit. where the hell are you going to get the transports for 15 million people?
__________________
Everyone has The Right to MY opinion!
Everyone also has the right to be Stupid every now and then. Some people Don't know how Not to abuse that!

70 Warrior - Affliction

If someone tells you it's OK to lie. How do you know they aren't lying?
SupportTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2006, 12:35 AM   #10
SupportTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ottawa. AKA, SUCK CENTRAL!
Posts: 3,344
I find it totaly hilarous that someone would even Consider the usa a police state.


they REALLY need to do some history lessons and or move to china( I dont mean a tourist I mean MOVE permanently to China) or some bananna republic to understand what a police state is.

my perception of the USA is barly controlled chaos.
__________________
Everyone has The Right to MY opinion!
Everyone also has the right to be Stupid every now and then. Some people Don't know how Not to abuse that!

70 Warrior - Affliction

If someone tells you it's OK to lie. How do you know they aren't lying?
SupportTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2006, 02:44 AM   #11
Chiteng
Supporter
 
Chiteng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,240
Originally Posted by SupportTank
chirst chit. where the hell are you going to get the transports for 15 million people?
It doesnt matter. It must be done.
Would you rather shoot them?

They are crimminals. They are here illegally.
Amnesty is what happened in 1986
It solved NOTHING.
__________________
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest
Chiteng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2006, 03:24 AM   #12
Ini
Indestructible
 
Ini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Davek is still my hero!
Posts: 4,006
Send a message via Yahoo to Ini
Originally Posted by Yen
since they ARE the government.
We ARE one branch of the government. Executive to be exact. I can tell you for sure, that I have never personally or my department recieved marching orders to quell the dissidence that has arisen at any time. I can assure you our top levels hate the politicians in our town so no following marching orders there.

As far as those incidents or police brutality. There is something called a use of force continuum.
Example of this Use of Force found on Wiki. Now mind you that this is a fairly decent, general example of use of force continuum utilized by Law Enforcement. Each department is different in their S.O.P.(standard operating procedure) when involving use of force. I can speak for mine and say that whatever the level of force they are using, we are allowed by our S.O.P. to take it one step higher up. Police presence in itself is a use of force. The rioters etc in alot of those pictures took it to a level that would possibly have caused harms to hundreds of police, innocent bystanders property. The police, probably following what their S.O.P. says, used the amount of force necessary to gain control of the situations.

Of course, I am just one officer with my thoughts, but, maybe I am already under Big Governments thumb and doing their evil bidding?

In Soviet Russia............
__________________
Pafuna Economics 101

That reminds me of someone eating a shit sandwich who is happy that it has 20% less shit.
Ini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2006, 03:59 AM   #13
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Chiteng
I wish we were. It would make deporting 15 million people much easier.
Of course you do.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2006, 04:46 AM   #14
Pafuna
Brilliant Curmudgeon
 
Pafuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the Pocket of Big Oil
Posts: 2,063
Police state, indeed...

Wulf and Beal articulate excellent viewpoints to the contrary.

If you want an example of a true police state, you need a security service with intelligence gathering capability firmly embedded in the state and city police agencies, all reporting to a central office. You also need the complicity of the armed forces and an infrastructure dedicated to the incarceration of its own citizens who are declared enemies of the state not for criminal activity but for simply speaking out against the state. You also need the approval of the governing body, like a parliament, who endorses a dictator to supreme executive power with no accountability to anyone. You also need the judiciary to do the state's bidding in direct contravention to any constitution or bill of rights, which would have been suspended.

Most importantly, you need the tacit approval, even the political will, of the people, for any government is doomed if the people unite against it.

If you want to know what a police state looks like, you can visit the history books and read all about Nazi Germany from 1933-1945. You can certainly read all about the Soviet Union and its glorious past. Indeed, the Soviet police state became the model for Poland, East Germany, and all the other Warsaw Pact nations.

Present day? How about North Korea? China? Iran? I'd call Iran a theocratic police state, but hey, that's just me...


I know it's so very popular these days for the radical left elements to declare this country a police state. I would also show you that in any police state, these leftist (or rightist in leftist regimes) elements would not be allowed to exist. Their mere presence disproves the notion of the USA police state.

Can you reasonably believe that simply speaking against your current government will land you in jail (excepting, of course, advocating for violent overthrow of the government - that's illegal)? Do you think that voicing your opinion against our government will get you killed?

Look around you. This society is more in danger from dying of diabetes or obesity that incarceration of its citizens in concentration camps.

The enemy isn't the state here - we've proven that we are far more dangerous to ourselves than our government is to us.
__________________
Originally Posted by Ini View Post
Holy shit I think Pafuna just won the intraweb!
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Damn, is Pafuna allowed to win the intrawebs twice, or is it a lifetime achievement thing?
Pafuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2006, 08:26 AM   #15
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Not to restart an old debate, but right now Germany is trying a man named Germar Rudolf for denying the Holocaust. Is Germany a police state? I certainly don't think so. How is the US, which doesn't prosecute people for voicing unfavorable political opinions, more of a police state that Germany? It's also illegal to be a member of certain political parties in Germany. Is the US more of a police state?
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2006, 08:51 AM   #16
celedine169
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: S FL
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Beal
It's also illegal to be a member of certain political parties in Germany.
Didn't the Allies write that into the German constitution? I don't think the Bundestag or their Supreme Court even has the power to remove that clause.

While we are not a police state yet, many laws are shifting here that open the door to becoming one. The Patriot Act is a prime example. Legalizing warrantless surveillance on citizens is a first step toward a central watchdog agency. Legalizing torture for alien combatants is a first step toward using it on anyone that is branded an enemy of the state.
No single president is responsible for this. The gradual concentration of power in the executive branch and the distancing of the Congress from the general populace has more to do with it. The very fact that the same two parties have controlled the government for over 100 years should be a huge red flag. The politicians no longer represent the people, but do the bidding of their superiors in the party and the people who finance their campaigns.
The transition from a republic to an empire is a gradual one, and is usually hailed as magnificent progress and social advancement. The people, in the end, swallow what they're told to in the name of patriotism, even though their nation is no longer what they thought it was.
The most effective tactic for keeping the support of the population? Wedge issues, like abortion and gay marriage. Hold their attention on your right hand so they don't see the left palming the dissappearing coin and dropping it in the pocket. Distraction and redirection. If you're not watching your society change, when you look back you won't always notice that it has.
__________________
80 Cleric
Officer of Resolution
celedine169 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 10:23 AM   #17
Yenadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 29
An interesting read Pafuna, but I do not think it is fair yet to compare us to Russia or Germany, we are moving in that direction, but have not fully arrived as a brutal totalitarian regime. Police state though, we have pretty well achieved.

If you want an example of a true police state, you need a security service with intelligence gathering capability firmly embedded in the state and city police agencies, all reporting to a central office.
A good point, and here we have the evidence;

NYPD CIA ties
We have this
quote by President Bush
The Bureau has assigned more than 1,800 agents to counterterrorism. That's a 40 percent increase than prior to September the 11th. In other words, this agency now understands that we're at war and the first responsibility of an incredibly important agency, the FBI, is to prevent the enemy from hitting us and hurting us. The agents that are out working in the field are gathering an evaluation -- evaluating information all the time, which helps us deal with any terrorist threat.
Global Hawk's, those unmanned spyplanes of the sky, are now flying official missions over America. What are we honestly spying on other than American people? Are there really THAT many terror cells operating out in broad daylight?

We also have this quote from Michael Chertoff when he addressed the Internation Association of Chiefs of Police annual conference.
You, police officers in the communities all across this country and all around the world, are the front line of our defense against terror, because the fact is, you know your communities better than anybody else. You are the most likely to detect the beginning phases of a possible plot, particularly a homegrown plot.
Now on to point two of your own definition of a police state:
You also need the complicity of the armed forces and an infrastructure dedicated to the incarceration of its own citizens who are declared enemies of the state not for criminal activity but for simply speaking out against the state.
It would be too lengthy to go into either Waco or Ruby ridge to support my thesis, so I will only make brief mention of them. Instead I will link to some more recent events. Firstly, I have a documentary about a group of protestors that was attacked with no provaction , bear in mind, the footage on this documentary is all footage shot by POLICE and shows them discussing tactics before they engage the crowd, proving it was a decision passed down from on high. This video also documents how the national media parroted the offical line..."someone through a bottle" when by the police's own footage, no bottle is ever shown being thrown.

Patriott act used to arrest american journalist . Allegedly because he filmed a refinery whilst also filming a concentration camp of Katrina victims in Alabama. If the Patriot Act is being used against American journalists, can we really expect that the Military Commisions Act won't also be used against american citizcens?



Your next point;
You also need the approval of the governing body, like a parliament, who endorses a dictator to supreme executive power with no accountability to anyone.
Well, as far as no accountabilty goes, the government has already written themselves a carte blanch dismissal for ANYTHING they have done post 9-11, via the aforementioned Military Commisions Act . There is also the Patriot Act , warrantless wiretapping, torture of prisoners, etc etc ad infinitum.

You also need the judiciary to do the state's bidding in direct contravention to any constitution or bill of rights, which would have been suspended.
Militarized police,
"no-knock" drug warrants that result in many innocent deaths. To say nothing of all the evidence of police attacking protestors, I'd say we have that base pretty well covered.


And your final point
Most importantly, you need the tacit approval, even the political will, of the people, for any government is doomed if the people unite against it.
As far as tacit approval goes, no one is rioting in the street over ANY of these flagrant abuses of power. There are even people who try to tell us that these are either good things, or just the "actions of a few deviants". More importantly, much of this is allowed because we are told to be afraid. Afraid of Drugs, terrorists, poverty, gun owners, religios wacko's, etc. So to protect us, we surrender some of our rights, a little at each time, in exchange for safety. Ahem, Reichstag anyone?
Yenadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 12:05 PM   #18
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
I find it interesting that anyone would think that the US is a police state or on the fast track of becoming one.

I think Celedine illustrates the suspicions some people have of government with the example of palming a coin into a pocket with the left hand while distracting with the right. What can be said to allay such skepticism? One could trot out examples of the ongoing struggle for power between the three branches of government in the US, but if a person wants to believe in a conspiracy by the government to wrest all power from the people, then nothing can be said to remove such a view.

I have found that viewing the country as moving towards a police state ranks right up there with conspiracy theories about how the Illuminati and the Masons really control the government. It seems that the slight of hand is with the conspiracy theorist who can keep our attention with little bits of facts as he weaves his tale between them hoping the story will come out true in the end.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 03:32 PM   #19
Ini
Indestructible
 
Ini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Davek is still my hero!
Posts: 4,006
Send a message via Yahoo to Ini
I think Yen is just another quack. /shrug.
__________________
Pafuna Economics 101

That reminds me of someone eating a shit sandwich who is happy that it has 20% less shit.
Ini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 04:17 PM   #20
Yenadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 29
Yeah, anyone who talks about a large conspiracy is a quack. Well I guess that makes JFK a quack then.
Yenadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 05:09 PM   #21
Chiteng
Supporter
 
Chiteng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,240
Originally Posted by Lurikeen
I find it interesting that anyone would think that the US is a police state or on the fast track of becoming one.

I think Celedine illustrates the suspicions some people have of government with the example of palming a coin into a pocket with the left hand while distracting with the right. What can be said to allay such skepticism? One could trot out examples of the ongoing struggle for power between the three branches of government in the US, but if a person wants to believe in a conspiracy by the government to wrest all power from the people, then nothing can be said to remove such a view.

I have found that viewing the country as moving towards a police state ranks right up there with conspiracy theories about how the Illuminati and the Masons really control the government. It seems that the slight of hand is with the conspiracy theorist who can keep our attention with little bits of facts as he weaves his tale between them hoping the story will come out true in the end.
I think proof of the police state is obvious.
Cynical use of public sentiment to promote a war against the WRONG enemy
for a personal agenda (IE control of the USA and getting re-elected)
AND getting his rich buddies largesse.

What other proof do you need?
__________________
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest
Chiteng is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 05:15 PM   #22
korast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,846
lol. About sums up this retardation.
korast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 05:18 PM   #23
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
While I don't think the US is a police state, I think blanket dismissals of anecdotal evidence is an excersize of intentional ignorance/ willful neglection. Okay, we're not a policfe state, but that doesn't mean we don't sometimes express characteristics that are reminiscent of one. Nothing is perfect.

Instead of dismissing perspectives that we don't share, Yen has provided more links and "proof" than I have seen anyone else do on the boards (save for maybe Beal during a good economic rant ).... so why not discuss at the very least some of his examples?
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 07:07 PM   #24
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Are we really spying on just American people Yen? I mean hell they won't even fly an American flag, they have to fly the flag of the country they fled....... and people wonder why the government don't 100 percent trust them.....
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2006, 07:32 PM   #25
celedine169
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: S FL
Posts: 774
Yenadil = Chiteng sans haiku + better links.
Just because a cop in LA beats a black man and a cop in Newark beat up a black man does not mean they're part of a police conspiracy against black men.
If there IS a conspiracy, they will be skillful enough to leave no trace, or to cover it up as an "accident".
The police state may be coming, but it will be ushered in to the vast acclaim of the people. The more things that are outlawed, the more criminals there will be.
__________________
80 Cleric
Officer of Resolution
celedine169 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.