You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

And, really, our Constitution says that everyone is created equal and with inalienable rights, not just U.S. citizens.

DSGamer wrote:

My intent was simply to carve off a thread where people didn't call those of us who share this opinion names, didn't accuse us of being conspiracy theorists and actually let us debate the issue on its own merits at the very least.

Yeah; I mean, there was an atheist only thread, so I don't see a big deal with this one.

Bear wrote:

Feel free to start the "Overly monitored, maybe, police state, not even close.

That's part of what Malor, DSGamer, and I are arguing. At the very least we're a surveillance state and there have been actions by the government and legislation passed by Congress that are slowly pushing the country towards becoming a police state. This thread should be the home for a healthy debate on related news and topics. My issue lately is that a few Goodjers seem to be here with the sole objective of staunchly opposing the concept despite whats being discussed and arguing just for the sake of derailing the primary discussion.

Hmmm...perhaps these are government plants that infiltrated our tinfoil thread!

What I have noticed is that there is a fair amount of debate going on, but it all people discussing how bad of a police state it is already.

Whenever someone comments that "law X" doesn't actually mean that we have become a police state (or some other comment of a similar nature) the response tends to be "but they *could* abuse the power in this way to make us a police state." (Which I always picture being read by a Scooby-Do villain making scarey hands gestures...)

I think that it is that, more than anything else, which gives people the impression that a lot of the people in this thread who are of the opinion that the US is a police state aren't actually interested in a discussion of it, but are rather using the thread as an Echo Chamber to help confirm what they already believe.

Malor wrote:

And, really, our Constitution says that everyone is created equal and with inalienable rights, not just U.S. citizens.

The Declaration of Independence does that. The U.S. Constitution covers the rights of U.S. citizens.

LouZiffer wrote:
Malor wrote:

And, really, our Constitution says that everyone is created equal and with inalienable rights, not just U.S. citizens.

The Declaration of Independence does that. The U.S. Constitution covers the rights of U.S. citizens.

No, besides right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office, Constitutional rights apply to everyone regardless of citizenship:

That’s from Scalia, and all the dissenting judges joined in that opinion. It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It’s not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that. Abdulmutallab was detained inside the U.S. Not even the Bush DOJ — not even Antonin Scalia — believe that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. Indeed, the whole reason why Guantanamo was created was that Bush officials wanted to claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners held outside the U.S.— not even the Bush administration would claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners generally.

The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008. To the contrary, the Supreme Court — all the way back in 1886 — explicitly held this to be the case, when, in *Yick Wo v. Hopkins*, it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

http://open.salon.com/blog/scottstar...

CheezePavilion wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
Malor wrote:

And, really, our Constitution says that everyone is created equal and with inalienable rights, not just U.S. citizens.

The Declaration of Independence does that. The U.S. Constitution covers the rights of U.S. citizens.

No, besides right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office, Constitutional rights apply to everyone regardless of citizenship:

That’s from Scalia, and all the dissenting judges joined in that opinion. It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It’s not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that. Abdulmutallab was detained inside the U.S. Not even the Bush DOJ — not even Antonin Scalia — believe that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. Indeed, the whole reason why Guantanamo was created was that Bush officials wanted to claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners held outside the U.S.— not even the Bush administration would claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners generally.

The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008. To the contrary, the Supreme Court — all the way back in 1886 — explicitly held this to be the case, when, in *Yick Wo v. Hopkins*, it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

http://open.salon.com/blog/scottstar...

That's a very good point in addition to the separate one I was trying to make.

mudbunny wrote:

What I have noticed is that there is a fair amount of debate going on, but it all people discussing how bad of a police state it is already.

Whenever someone comments that "law X" doesn't actually mean that we have become a police state (or some other comment of a similar nature) the response tends to be "but they *could* abuse the power in this way to make us a police state." (Which I always picture being read by a Scooby-Do villain making scarey hands gestures...)

I think that it is that, more than anything else, which gives people the impression that a lot of the people in this thread who are of the opinion that the US is a police state aren't actually interested in a discussion of it, but are rather using the thread as an Echo Chamber to help confirm what they already believe.

Pretty much this.

When you start with a counterfactual assumption like "Let's say we live in a police state" or "assume all cows are perfect spheres", the discussion pretty much descends into nonsense very quickly. Take a quick look at any of the more paranoid antigovernment message boards and you'll see all manner of sinister theories behind computerized toll collection, high definition television, and the fluoridation of water.

How can you be certain that no US citizens are disappearing into them? The simple answer is that, unlike any time until 2001 or so, you cannot. The government now explicitly says this behavior is legal. And because they can hide behind secrecy, you have no way to find out if that power is being exercised.

The government now says *what* behavior is legal? Cite it, man, because this is a pretty outrageous claim. If you are thinking the NDAA, we've already analyzed that to death, and it does not allow the government to disappear US citizens in anything like the scenario you are talking about. If you mean something else, let us know what.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or, at least, evidence. Your case is not made any stronger by the fact that you've purposely argued that we *can't* know it's happening - the government is both evil *and* incredibly competent, which flies in the face of numerous much less complicated conspiracies that could not remain secret. So you're basing this on a chain of assumptions that you'd never accept in someone debugging a computer problem.

So how can you be certain that the government *is* disappearing US citizens? You ask us the opposite, you should expect to answer the side your claim is on. And if things are as bad as you say, it should be easy. No family will remain silent if they think their loved one was abducted for political reasons, not in the US. That didn't happen in 2001 and 2002, and it's even less likely to happen now. But hey, it could be - I could be ignorant of it. So let us know.

Remember that drone law? Looks like it wasn't Evil Uncle Sam who pushed for it so they could finally spy on every American. It was, surprise, surprise, Big Drone.

That's right. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group for drone manufacturers, dumped more than half a million dollars over the past several years into lobbying for laws that would open up the skies to drones. In fact, they did more than lobby. It looks like they essentially wrote chunks of the legislation. So rather than being another sign of the apocalypse, the law was just a way for drone manufacturers to legislate a bigger market for their products.

OG_slinger wrote:

Remember that drone law? Looks like it wasn't Evil Uncle Sam who pushed for it so they could finally spy on every American. It was, surprise, surprise, Big Drone.

That's right. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group for drone manufacturers, dumped more than half a million dollars over the past several years into lobbying for laws that would open up the skies to drones. In fact, they did more than lobby. It looks like they essentially wrote chunks of the legislation. So rather than being another sign of the apocalypse, the law was just a way for drone manufacturers to legislate a bigger market for their products.

So wait, you're saying our legislative process was being influenced by lobbyists? That some company was using their cash to buy influence and get laws passed so they could make HUGE sums of money? I believe that's what "real" americuns call capitalism you filthy socialist!

I'm not hugely concerned with UAV's as long as they're being used for positive things like search and rescue. Lord knows how many lives might be saved. I'd prefer they remain in the control of police, fire etc.

I just have this ugly vision that it could escalate in all sorts of horrific privacy invasions. Politicians spying on each other, hordes of UAV's from a paparazzi air force at every celebrity event....

Worst of all, we don't need a bajillion UAV's cluttering up commercial airspace.

Bear wrote:

Worst of all, we don't need a bajillion UAV's cluttering up commercial airspace.

Let's nip this one right in the bud. The whole reason that the FAA is starting to work on ways to integrated UAVs into airspace is to avoid this issue.

Commercial airspace is *already* heavily restricted. This will not change, and if and when UAVs get cleared to operate in large numbers, I expect that commerical airways will remain closed to them, at least to begin with.

The flip side of this argument is that if it can be shown that UAVs can safely operate in commercial airspace, why shouldn't they? The concept of 'cluttering' is kind of nonsense. There's a safe number of aircraft that can operate in a given airspace, and it's largely determined by the air traffic control procedures and technologies that are in place. If ATC has spare capacity in a given airspace, why shouldn't it be opened up to UAVs?

You're probably not going to have a lot of UAVs crowding into controlled airspace. The worry is uncontrolled airspace, of which the U.S. has a surprisingly large amount, where pilots are expected to 'see and avoid' other aircraft. UAVs aren't well set up for that right now, because they aren't designed to be used in our civil system. I suppose they could be, if the market is big enough.

Small UAVs are a tougher problem, because they fly low, down around where there are a lot of small general aviation aircraft and helicopters flying around.

FBI says paying cash for coffee is a sign of terrorist intent.

Seems by paying cash for small purchases, you’re trying not to leave a trail. Can we put the grownups in charge?

Edwin wrote:

FBI says paying cash for coffee is a sign of terrorist intent.

Seems by paying cash for small purchases, you’re trying not to leave a trail. Can we put the grownups in charge?

I don't know where you'll find the grownups. Most people in America seem A-OK with spy drones. Why would the grown ups bother coming back when everyone is content to be babysat?

Feds Argue Using a Fake Name Can Deprive You of Rights [Wall Street Journal]

Edwin wrote:

Feds Argue Using a Fake Name Can Deprive You of Rights [Wall Street Journal]

Just as Jefferson would have intended it...

The problem with all this stuff is that the FBI is asking people to look for *patterns*, and people extract one or two things and say "Oh, the FBI thinks if you do this, you're a terrorist, now we're in a police state". It's a scope error. You have to consider the full picture, you can't just extract one thing and pretend that's all there is to it.

If people are not being grabbed in Internet cafes for paying cash, then clearly this take on the warnings is simply wrong. The FBI is not perfect, but it's not staffed by complete idiots either. Complaining that the FBI thinks you're a terrorist for paying cash while they are *not* arresting people for that is putting speculation before fact.

Talk to someone who has lived in a police state - say, the former Soviet Union, or Iran, or Burma, or North Korea, or East Germany, or Syria, and suggest that we are living in one in the US, and they'll soil themselves laughing at the spoiled Americans who can't appreciate what they have. Frogs don't let themselves be boiled uncomplainingly, and we will not put up with a police state if it begins to form. Surveillance is a different thing, and while it can be abused, the concept of a police state goes *way* beyond the government watching people in various ways.

One point that people don't seem to consider is that surveillance is not limited to the government. It's always been practiced by states to the best level of technology available, but that tech is also typically available to commercial and social entities. The Catholic Church surveilles it's adherents on a weekly basis. Advertisers have done it for the last century. Schools and universities routinely monitor students. Unions monitor their members. What's important is when the methods only available to governments come into regular, ubiquitous use, thus separating out government capabilities from those of other organizations, AND when the government begins to act on that information in a way that is contrary to individual liberty. We saw that in 2001 and 2002, when the FBI blew up every existing terrorist investigation by arresting thousands of suspects without cause. We saw it affect hundreds of individuals at Gitmo. And we've see a handful of dodgy assassinations by the Executive branch (people don't seem to consider the preceding hundred or so extrajudicial killings of non-citizens to be a problem, but okay). But none of this - none of it - rises to the level of a Cuba or a Syria or even a Singapore, which is both an *admitted* police state *and* often regarded as more pleasant than the US to live it. And our whining that we live in a police state because we can't brandish a licensed weapon in a police station while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" is just petulant. We *do* have problems with encroachments on civil rights and individual liberties, but that does not make us a police state. It means we are a *democracy*; we make mistakes, and we fix them. If you want to see change in the US, look at the last 30 years of policy changes in the financial markets and the economy. Those were driven by *deliberate* choices, they have a clear effect, and there's no mistaking what was going on, as they've been complained about and opposed every step of the way. There's something that *really* hurt us. There's no similar grounding of deliberate direction in the mistakes we've been making in the (mis)handling of rights, nor is it in any way popular, nor is it unopposed. And it's demonstrably not affecting more than a handful of individuals, because the claims go well beyond ordinary police abuse or any other long-standing background problem of rights violation.

If you want to look at rights violations as evidence of a police state, you'd need at *least* what we had with "separate but equal", a set of government laws and policies that disenfranchise *millions*, deliberately, and with the support of the government. Then you can make the claim. Until then, there are many things worth opposing, but we *can* oppose them, and turn the policies around, as we've been doing publicly and with much debate for the last 11 years. Try that in Cuba. That's how *democracy* works, and while it's not perfect, it's what we've got, and it defends us pretty well despite periodic setbacks. We are freer now than we ever have been in our history.

We are freer now than we ever have been in our history.

I call BS on this. You think that even with Homeland Security, the TSA, warrantless wiretapping, unmanned drones patrolling the skies, government profiling of your spending habits, monitoring all online communication, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, etc. that we are *more* free?

No. Sorry. That's not the definition of freedom, IMO. You're free to be afraid that any of a number of normal things you did 11 years ago will trigger an invasive government investigation into your life at which point you may or may not have the right to an attorney and a fair trial. That's not my definition of "more free". Unless we've moved on to Doublethink already.

Also the "This isn't Burma" defense is pretty weak. Yes, this is not Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. So by that sliding scale of freedom we're free. That's not a high bar to clear, though.

By the way, this constitutes a "success" under the current regime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/capitol-bomb-plot-fbi_n_1285635.html?1329521349

They took an informant and successfully entrapped him into donning a fake vest and now he's being charged with attempting to use weapons of mass destruction against the US.

DSGamer wrote:

By the way, this constitutes a "success" under the current regime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/capitol-bomb-plot-fbi_n_1285635.html?1329521349

They took an informant and successfully entrapped him into donning a fake vest and now he's being charged with attempting to use weapons of mass destruction against the US.

It's impossible to know how far "terrorists" like this guy would have taken their comments had they not been given resources by government agents. I believe that many (or possibly even all) of these thwarted attacks were fabricated by the government to further instill fear among the masses that there's a 'jihadist under every bed' (Ron Paul quote) and around every corner.

There are tens of thousands of targets in the US and there hasn't been one successful attack since 2001. If these Muslim terrorists (homegrown or not) really were attempting to attack us, something would have happened. Its physically impossible to protect every target at every moment across the span of 10 years. It's in the governments interest to keep us perpetually afraid, suspicious of each other and blindly compliant to all authority.

DSGamer wrote:

By the way, this constitutes a "success" under the current regime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/capitol-bomb-plot-fbi_n_1285635.html?1329521349

They took an informant and successfully entrapped him into donning a fake vest and now he's being charged with attempting to use weapons of mass destruction against the US.

Did you actually read the article or are you desperately flailing to make this fit your police state theory?

Indeed, El Khalifi attracted attention a year and a half ago when his suburban Virginia landlord called police after the man allegedly threatened to beat him. It wasn't until January 2011 though, according to court papers, that a confidential informant told the FBI that El Khalifi had said in a meeting in his apartment that the "war on terrorism” was a “war on Muslims” and warned the group it needed to be ready for war. Over the course of a year, under close surveillance, he allegedly proposed attacking U.S. military installations, Army generals, a synagogue, and a restaurant frequented by military officials.

So what's the appropriate course of action here, just ignore they guy and hope he doesn't do something?

“While we do not know all the facts surrounding this case, the willingness of the suspect to take custody of a suicide vest and head to a public area makes this a very serious case," said David Schanzer, a terrorism expert at Duke University.
93_confirmed wrote:

There are tens of thousands of targets in the US and there hasn't been one successful attack since 2001. If these Muslim terrorists (homegrown or not) really were attempting to attack us, something would have happened. Its physically impossible to protect every target at every moment across the span of 10 years. It's in the governments interest to keep us perpetually afraid, suspicious of each other and blindly compliant to all authority.

There's also been a number of attempted attacks that have failed within the last several years. Most recently the nitwit who tried to detonate an SUV filled with explosives in Times Square. How about the guys who were trying to blow up the fuel tanks at JFK? Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 29 others and he was a freaking Army Major. Just because sh*t isn't blowing up every day doesn't mean there aren't people out there trying to find a way to make it happen.

So what's the appropriate course of action here, just ignore they guy and hope he doesn't do something?

I did read the article and entrapment isn't the solution. If someone is being goaded by federal officials into attempting an act of terror with fake weapons that's essentially throughtcrime or pre-crime, depending on your dystopia of choice.

Bear wrote:

So what's the appropriate course of action here, just ignore they guy and hope he doesn't do something?

The FBI spent a year watching this guy and he didn't do anything but talk. It was only after the FBI brought in someone to play al Qaeda and encourage him did he actually do anything. Even then it was the FBI who gave him the fake suicide vest and the non-operable gun. He didn't make the bomb himself nor did he buy or steal a gun.

What would you say if this didn't involve terrorism. What if El Khalifi had just mentioned that it be cool to rob a bank and then the FBI got someone to play the role of a criminal mastermind who then went on to supply him with a ski mask, gun, and getaway car?

DSGamer wrote:

I did read the article and entrapment isn't the solution. If someone is being goaded by federal officials into attempting an act of terror with fake weapons that's essentially throughtcrime or pre-crime, depending on your dystopia of choice.

So apply this to another crime. If a pedophile is attempting to download child porn from an state police sting website is that not the same thing? An undercover narc officer pretending to be a dealer? An undercover female cop pretending to be a prostitute?

I'm not seeing the difference.

I read the article, listened to/watched the video clips. Didn't see anything in there about where on the line of "I want to buy a suicide bomb vest, will you sell one to me"and "wouldn't it be awesome if you bought this and blew up a building!! Come on. You know you want to!! DO IT!! DO IT!!" this case lands.

All it says is that he bought it from federal agents who were undercover. That doesn't make it entrapment.

Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I did read the article and entrapment isn't the solution. If someone is being goaded by federal officials into attempting an act of terror with fake weapons that's essentially throughtcrime or pre-crime, depending on your dystopia of choice.

So apply this to another crime. If a pedophile is attempting to download child porn from an state police sting website is that not the same thing? An undercover narc officer pretending to be a dealer? An undercover female cop pretending to be a prostitute?

I'm not seeing the difference.

Wow. That's a huge difference. In the case of the prostitute or pedophile they're actively out and about trying to engage in the illegal activity. They're soliciting it directly. In this case this was someone whom the government approached and supplied the fake weapons to. It's possible he never goes beyond thinking about it if someone doesn't actively approach him. It wasn't like he was at Terrorists R' Us looking for suicide vests and the feds setup shop. They approached him.

DSGamer wrote:
Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I did read the article and entrapment isn't the solution. If someone is being goaded by federal officials into attempting an act of terror with fake weapons that's essentially throughtcrime or pre-crime, depending on your dystopia of choice.

So apply this to another crime. If a pedophile is attempting to download child porn from an state police sting website is that not the same thing? An undercover narc officer pretending to be a dealer? An undercover female cop pretending to be a prostitute?

I'm not seeing the difference.

Wow. That's a huge difference. In the case of the prostitute or pedophile they're actively out and about trying to engage in the illegal activity. They're soliciting it directly. In this case this was someone whom the government approached and supplied the fake weapons to. It's possible he never goes beyond thinking about it if someone doesn't actively approach him. It wasn't like he was at Terrorists R' Us looking for suicide vests and the feds setup shop. They approached him.

Entrapment requires that Law Enforcement actively encourages the person to do the act. The article/videos give *no* indication of how much of this came from the suspect and how much came from Law Enforcement. Simply selling something to the guy does not automatically make it entrapment.

Quote:

We are freer now than we ever have been in our history.

I call BS on this. You think that even with Homeland Security, the TSA, warrantless wiretapping, unmanned drones patrolling the skies, government profiling of your spending habits, monitoring all online communication, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, etc. that we are *more* free?

You're citing here mostly changes in *privacy*, not freedoms. That's a different thing, just like a surveillance state is different from a police state (although the latter often contains the former, the inverse is not reliably true.) In some states, gay people can be married, a freedom they did not have before. In many states, eminent domain has been limited - an increase in freedom. One could argue that an increase in the number of people covered by health insurance increases their freedom to take jobs that they want, rather than just the ones that offer the benefits they need.

No. Sorry. That's not the definition of freedom, IMO. You're free to be afraid that any of a number of normal things you did 11 years ago will trigger an invasive government investigation into your life at which point you may or may not have the right to an attorney and a fair trial. That's not my definition of "more free". Unless we've moved on to Doublethink already.

Like what things? How are you in more danger of arrest now than you were 11 years ago, and how is that related to your freedoms, as opposed to your actions? What act that was innocent 11 years ago is not innocent now?

Also the "This isn't Burma" defense is pretty weak. Yes, this is not Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. So by that sliding scale of freedom we're free. That's not a high bar to clear, though.

Of course it's weak. Try the "This isn't Singapore" on for size. That's also on the sliding scale of freedom, and we *are* more free here, but no one complains that Singapore is a horrible place to live. Yet many here equate the US under Bush and Obama to Stalinist Russia. I'm just trying to point out that that is crazy talk. Our use of the term "police state" in regards to the US is a huge exaggeration.

It wasn't like he was at Terrorists R' Us looking for suicide vests and the feds setup shop. They approached him.

So if an actual radical group had approached him instead, you're good with the Feds having left him alone earlier?