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

Looks like the reported incidence of police involved in criminal behavior is below 1% nationally (in the US). This is according to the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project, which is not exactly supportive of police, and is based on 2010 media reported cases of police misconduct (since, of course, most police departments refuse to release these stats - certainly more transparency would be a very good thing).

Certainly it's not good, but even if we assume that it's under-reporting, the situation is not as bad as is implied by the pictures and claims above.

And how many cases have been successfully prosecuted against police? Two? Three?

This was in reference to 9500 deaths between 1980 and 2005. According to the report, the average rate of conviction for policemen accused of crimes was about 37% (general public is about 70%) and the percentage of those who received jail time was about 36% (compared to about 68% of convictions for ordinary citizens). So that's about 12%-13% of policemen accused of crimes going to jail. Malor's claim was 3 in 9500, or .003%, which I'd argue is far to pessimistic. There's plenty of room for improvement, but it's not as bad as has been asserted.

karmajay wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Malor wrote:

Except laws they're not allowed to know. Yes, you can be held responsible for breaking a law you are not allowed to read. Seriously.

How can you obey a law you can't read?

What law would that be? Serious question.

Dude, you trolling? How is the guy supposed to tell you a law that he can't read?!? ;)

Ironically, trolling someone about a law could get you locked up under a new law in Arizona that prohibits trolling.

Being annoying, offensive or maybe even provocative online could become illegal in Arizona if legislators move forward with a bill.

Arizona House Bill 2549 would amend the telephone harassment section of the state's anti-stalking law to include the communication technology of the day in an effort to combat cyberbullying.

Eliminating the freedom to troll confirms that we are a police state.

What law would that be? Serious question.

Here's some examples from the Bush administration, in a 2009 piece by Glenn Greenwald.

That's just the tip of an iceberg, but it's a good start.

The Sentencing Statement of Tarek Mehanna, jailed for 17 years for having an opinion the government doesn't like.

More background.

It's sure a police state for Mr. Mehanna.

Malor wrote:

The Sentencing Statement of Tarek Mehanna, jailed for 17 years for having an opinion the government doesn't like.

More background.

It's sure a police state for Mr. Mehanna.

I was actually going to link to his speech in the Iran thread last week.

It's a powerful statement, but I think it has much more to do with America's complete inability to put itself in the shoes of the people we mess with in the name of "freedom and democracy" or to give two sh*ts about the fallout of our policies. I mean how many in-depth reports are the media doing about the aftermath of Iraq? None. We get the occasional report of a suicide bombing, but nothing more. You'd think after spending a trillion dollars we'd have more people asking questions of just what that pile of money got us and the Iraqi people.

But note that Mr. Mehanna is only in prison because he refused to be an informant. This was the central abuse of the Stasi -- if you wouldn't inform on your friends and neighbors, you went to prison.

Mr. Mehanna is in jail today because he's ethical, not because he is dangerous in any way. He is the prisoner of a police state.

TSA agents coming to Houston buses (Infowars link)

A new program in Houston will place undercover TSA agents and police officers on buses whose job it will be to perform bag searches, watch for “suspicious activity” and interrogate passengers in order to ‘curb crime and terrorism’.

...According to a Metropolitan Transit Authority of Houston (METRO) press release, agencies involved in the scheme will, “ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior.”

We are not in a police state.

93_confirmed wrote:

TSA agents coming to Houston buses

A new program in Houston will place undercover TSA agents and police officers on buses whose job it will be to perform bag searches, watch for “suspicious activity” and interrogate passengers in order to ‘curb crime and terrorism’.

...According to a Metropolitan Transit Authority of Houston (METRO) press release, agencies involved in the scheme will, “ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior.”

We are not in a police state.

But imagine the sheer terror if someone got a bomb aboard a bus! I mean, it isn't a tanker truck full of gasoline. Or a school bus. Or a mass transit rail line. Or a school. Or a mall. Or a TSA security checkpoint line. Or a dam. Or a power plant. Or a water pumping station. Or a tall building. Or a hospital. Or a concert. Or a sports stadium. Or a tunnel. Or a bridge. Or a monument. Or a convention. Or...

I can't decide if this is about the government wanting to make us more used to the gloved hand of oppression on the genitals of freedom (read: evil), or if it is "leadership" in the TSA/HS bureaucracy wanting to expand their power/budget/influece by hiring as many minimum-wage lackeys via pizza-box ad as possible without putting them somewhere that would require real knowledge or effort(read: incompetence + greed).

Kraint wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

TSA agents coming to Houston buses

A new program in Houston will place undercover TSA agents and police officers on buses whose job it will be to perform bag searches, watch for “suspicious activity” and interrogate passengers in order to ‘curb crime and terrorism’.

...According to a Metropolitan Transit Authority of Houston (METRO) press release, agencies involved in the scheme will, “ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior.”

We are not in a police state.

But imagine the sheer terror if someone got a bomb aboard a bus! I mean, it isn't a tanker truck full of gasoline. Or a school bus. Or a mass transit rail line. Or a school. Or a mall. Or a TSA security checkpoint line. Or a dam. Or a power plant. Or a water pumping station. Or a tall building. Or a hospital. Or a concert. Or a sports stadium. Or a tunnel. Or a bridge. Or a monument. Or a convention. Or...

I can't decide if this is about the government wanting to make us more used to the gloved hand of oppression on the genitals of freedom (read: evil), or if it is "leadership" in the TSA/HS bureaucracy wanting to expand their power/budget/influece by hiring as many minimum-wage lackeys via pizza-box ad as possible without putting them somewhere that would require real knowledge or effort(read: incompetence + greed).

Can't it be both?

Kraint wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

TSA agents coming to Houston buses

A new program in Houston will place undercover TSA agents and police officers on buses whose job it will be to perform bag searches, watch for “suspicious activity” and interrogate passengers in order to ‘curb crime and terrorism’.

...According to a Metropolitan Transit Authority of Houston (METRO) press release, agencies involved in the scheme will, “ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior.”

We are not in a police state.

But imagine the sheer terror if someone got a bomb aboard a bus! I mean, it isn't a tanker truck full of gasoline. Or a school bus. Or a mass transit rail line. Or a school. Or a mall. Or a TSA security checkpoint line. Or a dam. Or a power plant. Or a water pumping station. Or a tall building. Or a hospital. Or a concert. Or a sports stadium. Or a tunnel. Or a bridge. Or a monument. Or a convention. Or...

A coworker and I were just debating this and my argument was that if a terrorist was going to attack the airline industry wouldnt it be much more destructive and efficient to attack the airport than a single plane. Why deal with all the logistics of passing through security and dealing with flight crew, passengers, etc. when you could walk through the front door unchecked where thousands of passengers are congragated. The fact that this has not happened (nor have there been any other transportation attacks) tells me that the TSA is completely useless. We don't need to give up our civil liberties for this false sense of safety.

93_confirmed wrote:
Kraint wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

TSA agents coming to Houston buses

A new program in Houston will place undercover TSA agents and police officers on buses whose job it will be to perform bag searches, watch for “suspicious activity” and interrogate passengers in order to ‘curb crime and terrorism’.

...According to a Metropolitan Transit Authority of Houston (METRO) press release, agencies involved in the scheme will, “ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior.”

We are not in a police state.

But imagine the sheer terror if someone got a bomb aboard a bus! I mean, it isn't a tanker truck full of gasoline. Or a school bus. Or a mass transit rail line. Or a school. Or a mall. Or a TSA security checkpoint line. Or a dam. Or a power plant. Or a water pumping station. Or a tall building. Or a hospital. Or a concert. Or a sports stadium. Or a tunnel. Or a bridge. Or a monument. Or a convention. Or...

A coworker and I were just debating this and my argument was that if a terrorist was going to attack the airline industry wouldnt it be much more destructive and efficient to attack the airport than a single plane. Why deal with all the logistics of passing through security and dealing with flight crew, passengers, etc. when you could walk through the front door unchecked where thousands of passengers are congragated. The fact that this has not happened (nor have there been any other transportation attacks) tells me that the TSA is completely useless. We don't need to give up our civil liberties for this false sense of safety.

Yeah, this to me has always been the biggest flaw in the security theater. A person could walk up to busy airport on a Monday and kill more people waiting in long lines for security than on an actual airplane. And then what? Do we then start putting security in front of the airport? You need to go onto planes naked, all bags are checked?

DSGamer wrote:

Yeah, this to me has always been the biggest flaw in the security theater. A person could walk up to busy airport on a Monday and kill more people waiting in long lines for security than on an actual airplane. And then what? Do we then start putting security in front of the airport? You need to go onto planes naked, all bags are checked?

http://gothamist.com/2012/04/18/man_...

IMAGE(http://gothamist.com/attachments/nyc_arts_john/041812airportprotest.jpg)

I figure this is rather appropriate to this thread:

Last night and the night before, the wife and I heard military helicopters pass low over our place a few times each night. We thought maybe the president was in town after the South American summit, but that wasn't right-- it was just Blackhawks performing "routine" training exercises around the downtown area. Kinda scary.

WipEout wrote:

I figure this is rather appropriate to this thread:

Last night and the night before, the wife and I heard military helicopters pass low over our place a few times each night. We thought maybe the president was in town after the South American summit, but that wasn't right-- it was just Blackhawks performing "routine" training exercises around the downtown area. Kinda scary.

Care to explain why this is appropriate to the thread? I don't follow.

Jonman wrote:
WipEout wrote:

I figure this is rather appropriate to this thread:

Last night and the night before, the wife and I heard military helicopters pass low over our place a few times each night. We thought maybe the president was in town after the South American summit, but that wasn't right-- it was just Blackhawks performing "routine" training exercises around the downtown area. Kinda scary.

Care to explain why this is appropriate to the thread? I don't follow.

It's pretty obvious. If the military is training in downtown Chicago, it is not for the obvious reason that it is much easier for helicopter pilots to train for operations in foreign cities in a city that already exists as opposed to building one of their own, rather it is because this is just another sign that the government is making sure that the military can, at a moments notice, take out any inconvenient citizens.

Did I get the right level of hyperbole and alarm?? I am never sure when posting in this thread.

Did I get the right level of hyperbole and alarm??

Good thing for you that you're white and non-Muslim, so you can scorn the experiences of those who aren't.

Ironically the 1992 version of GWJ would have people freaking out about "black helicopters". Now we're cool with them.

Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by helicopters?

muttonchop wrote:

Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by helicopters?

Yes, actually, they are.

More on point: that's not especially relevant. What IS relevant is that you have no business being scornful and dismissive of others' experience with the police state, when you yourself aren't trying to rattle your chains in any way, and aren't one of the classes of people that are oppressed the most severely (blacks and Muslims, primarily.)

Malor wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by helicopters?

Yes, actually, they are.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more specific. Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by military helicopters in America?

No, actually, you shouldn't be more specific, because you're trying to derail the thread into more sneering.

You can sit there, white, middle class, and holding only very popular thoughts, and sneer all you like, but that doesn't mean you are correct.

Malor wrote:

No, actually, you shouldn't be more specific, because you're trying to derail the thread into more sneering.

This.

Malor's point was clear and this isn't really helping.

muttonchop wrote:
Malor wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by helicopters?

Yes, actually, they are.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more specific. Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by military helicopters in America?

This is kind of funny, actually.

I think Malor's point is valid. That being that in the Middle East American military helicopters DO attack muslims frequently. And in America mulisms are surveilled more than whites.

But no, muttonchop, muslims aren't literally attacked by military helicopters in American cities.

mudbunny wrote:
Malor wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by helicopters?

Yes, actually, they are.

Given that this thread is talking about whether or not the US is a police state, am I right in assuming that you are saying that, in the US, muslims and non-whites are regularly attacked by military attack helicopters??

Ugh.

No, Malor is saying that in the US muslims and non-whites have enough legitimate reason to fear military attack helicopters.

Malor wrote:

No, actually, you shouldn't be more specific, because you're trying to derail the thread into more sneering.

You can sit there, white, middle class, and holding only very popular thoughts, and sneer all you like, but that doesn't mean you are correct.

It's amazing how you can tell so much about my race, opinions, financial situation and facial expressions from two questions like that. mudbunny mocked the idea that a military training operation involving helicopters was in any way indicative of a police state, and you somehow related that back to persecution of minorities. I was genuinely confused by that particular logical leap, so I asked for clarification. That's it. I certainly wasn't sneering, and for what it's worth I absolutely do worry that the US is slowly becoming a police state. I'm just really not sure where the helicopters fit in.

Malor wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by helicopters?

Yes, actually, they are.

Given that this thread is talking about whether or not the US is a police state, am I right in assuming that you are saying that, in the US, muslims and non-whites are regularly attacked by military attack helicopters??

Edit to add:

Malor wrote:

More on point: that's not especially relevant. What IS relevant is that you have no business being scornful and dismissive of others' experience with the police state, when you yourself aren't trying to rattle your chains in any way, and aren't one of the classes of people that are oppressed the most severely (blacks and Muslims, primarily.)

The subject of the thread is whether or not "...the US is a Police State. Discuss." Those who believe that the US *is* a police state have *regularly* used hyperbole theatre in this thread to prove their point. Yet when those who, after looking at what happens in an actual police state, do not feel that the US is anywhere near a police state, use a bit of hyperbole or question the hyperbole used by those that do, we are essentially being told that we have no right to raise those questions.

SixteenBlue wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Malor wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

Are Muslims and non-whites routinely attacked by helicopters?

Yes, actually, they are.

Given that this thread is talking about whether or not the US is a police state, am I right in assuming that you are saying that, in the US, muslims and non-whites are regularly attacked by military attack helicopters??

Ugh.

No, Malor is saying that in the US muslims and non-whites have enough legitimate reason to fear military attack helicopters.

Unless Malor mis-typed, he is not saying that they fear being attacked. He is saying that they are routinely attacked.

Can we move on from spliiting hairs over helicopter comments? Id like hear from the non-police staters on TSA agents operating in other segments of the transportation industry. Any concern about this?

Malor - climb back up the rabbithole you've clawed your way down, and address the question posed - how does a military training operation imply anything about a police state? Or about skin colour or religion, for that matter. Mudbunny is right to question that assertion, albeit that his tone didn't contribute.

93_confirmed wrote:

Can we move on from spliiting hairs over helicopter comments? Id like hear from the non-police staters on TSA agents operating in other segments of the transportation industry. Any concern about this?

Concern? Not really. I'd seriously question whether it's a worthwhile use of money and resources (and even whether it's effective in any way), but I have that same concern against all security theater, up to and including airport security. I see it far more as bumbling bureaucratic mis-step that occurs from lack of oversight than evidence of a power grab or a step towards a policier-state.

Policier - totally a word.

A military training operation in its own right is fine-- but to practice over civilian airspace (hell-- civilian living space-- they were flying SUPER low) not only speaks to the idea of a police state in which the government makes regular public displays of its military might and presence, but also to the blatant disregard for the value and safety of its own citizens-- there's a reason most actual routine training operations happen away from populated areas-- training implies a potentially large margin of error to which the military was not willing to subject the general population. That's what scares me, and that obvious disregard for US citizens is what further (if only slightly) gives me the impression that we are living in a military/police state.