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

Robear wrote:

They bought 200 million in 2009. ICE is also involved. The idea is that they take year-end funds and set up a contract for five years to buy hollow-points, with a quantity not to exceed 450 million. That's about 90 million a year, maximum, but there's no reason to assume they'll have that much money to spend each year. I'd figured 250 million if the run rate is similar to the last two years.

It takes, what, a few thousand rounds to become proficient with a weapon, and if you spread that out over 200,000 DHS employees - or even, say, 100,000 armed agents, I have no idea what the number actually is - it's actually a pretty small number of bullets per day per agent. (TSA has 58000, I'd say more than half are armed (it's human-intensive work); ICE has 15,000; Border Patrol has over 20,000... There are a lot of armed people running around DHS.)

So let's say ICE alone gets 250 million rounds and divides them up among their employees. That's about 2500 rounds per employee over 5 years, or 500 rounds per year if I did the math right. 200 working days, that's 2.5 rounds a day.

Big numbers are big. DHS is an incompetent, poorly directed, expensive boondoggle, but I don't think in this case that there's anything unusual here. Most of that lead will not be bought by them, and what is will mostly cut paper. This is in no way an apologia for their policies, funding or anything else. It's just a look at the numbers.

What I don't understand is why they need to be putting the expensive stuff downrange instead of using regular ball ammo for practice like the rest of the educated world does.

Maybe it's an investment, betting on anti-Obama ammo-price inflation.

That still seems awfully high, since so many of their employees aren't armed. Do we actually know that the 90 million rounds each year are being consumed? Do they truly use that many bullets?

Also worth pointing out that hollow-points are designed to kill people, not paper.

Oh, what I actually stopped in to post:

NDAA hearing notes

“Government lawyers in New York court tell Judge they can’t directly rule out detaining Chris Hedges for reporting, Occupy London for protesting, or the author of a hypothetical book on politics for expressing an opinion, under NDAA sections 1021 and 1022.”

So even government lawyers are admitting that they can lock up anyone they want, forever, under NDAA.

Expanded version of the above:

The headlines? Lawyers for the US government, given several chances by Judge Forrest to do so, would not rule out detaining Chris Hedges under the NDAA for reporting,; they would not rule out defining a political book as providing ‘material support’ for terrorists. The Government, given multiple chances by Judge Forrest to do so, also would not or could not give any direct definition of who is included in the phrase ‘associated forces’, or what any example of what it means to ‘provide material support.” And the government did not dispute the validity of a DHS memo that tried to target Occupy Wall St as cyberterrorists.

Until people are literally being disappeared constantly... not a police state. Just the entire apparatus of one.

How would we know if they were?

DSGamer wrote:

Until people are literally being disappeared constantly... not a police state. Just the entire apparatus of one.

Really? Sorry, but isn't that kind of like saying a bomb isn't a bomb until it actually blows up?

WipEout wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Until people are literally being disappeared constantly... not a police state. Just the entire apparatus of one.

Really? Sorry, but isn't that kind of like saying a bomb isn't a bomb until it actually blows up?

Hey. That's not my assertion. That's the assertion of the people who think malor and I are crazy for worrying about the state of the US.

WipEout wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Until people are literally being disappeared constantly... not a police state. Just the entire apparatus of one.

Really? Sorry, but isn't that kind of like saying a bomb isn't a bomb until it actually blows up?

I believe it was sarcasm as that idea has been presented frequently in this thread.

Too slow. Tannhausered.

So even government lawyers are admitting that they can lock up anyone they want, forever, under NDAA.

As far as I can tell, those things are not in the link you posted, other than in the assertion at the top of the page. I *do* see lots of attempting to point out reasoning against that conclusion, and the judge taking extreme examples to try to get to the edges, but nothing that comes out of it supports your statement above, or the claim made at the top of the notes.

Ah, sorry, it's been a while since I jumped in this particular Police State thread. I've been seeing that same basic argument from others in these threads that I forgot where you stood on the matter

WipEout wrote:

Ah, sorry, it's been a while since I jumped in this particular Police State thread. I've been seeing that same basic argument from others in these threads that I forgot where you stood on the matter :P

I've been solidly on the "US is a police state or at least becoming one" side ever since the Patriot Act.

On another note:
Quit yer grinnin' and drop yer linen.

Strip searches are apparently A-OK for any and all arrests.

Kraint wrote:

On another note:
Quit yer grinnin' and drop yer linen.

Strip searches are apparently A-OK for any and all arrests.

....not for arrests but for entry into jail/prison. I honestly thought that was standard procedure already.

The ridiculous part of that story is not the strip searches, it's the jail for a week for a fine that was already paid.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Kraint wrote:

On another note:
Quit yer grinnin' and drop yer linen.

Strip searches are apparently A-OK for any and all arrests.

....not for arrests but for entry into jail/prison. I honestly thought that was standard procedure already.

The ridiculous part of that story is not the strip searches, it's the jail for a week for a fine that was already paid.

It says detainment, and I was under the impression that people who are being held (without yet being charged), would fall into the 'jail' population. I may well be wrong, I have no experience in that area.

Kraint wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Kraint wrote:

On another note:
Quit yer grinnin' and drop yer linen.

Strip searches are apparently A-OK for any and all arrests.

....not for arrests but for entry into jail/prison. I honestly thought that was standard procedure already.

The ridiculous part of that story is not the strip searches, it's the jail for a week for a fine that was already paid.

It says detainment, and I was under the impression that people who are being held (without yet being charged), would fall into the 'jail' population. I may well be wrong, I have no experience in that area.

I think the holding cells are not considered part of the jail "general population" which is the phrase used there. Likewise I could be wrong but the impression I got was they're searching people who are actually going to jail. That's unfortunate but I imagine it's a necessary step.

Kraint wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Kraint wrote:

On another note:
Quit yer grinnin' and drop yer linen.

Strip searches are apparently A-OK for any and all arrests.

....not for arrests but for entry into jail/prison. I honestly thought that was standard procedure already.

The ridiculous part of that story is not the strip searches, it's the jail for a week for a fine that was already paid.

It says detainment, and I was under the impression that people who are being held (without yet being charged), would fall into the 'jail' population. I may well be wrong, I have no experience in that area.

I was also of the impression that strip searches for detainees was lawful and ordinary procedure. I've never been arrested and plan if possible to avoid that experience altogether, but if I do find myself in that situation, I think I'd feel just a little bit more secure knowing that someone doesn't have a fiberglass shiv hidden in his ass crack.

Here's some more information on the NDAA lawsuit (which is known as Hedges v Obama for those who would like to google it). Courthouse News is perhaps less biased than Naomi Wolf, who was arrested at Occupy NYC and has a personal interest in the outcome.

The lawsuit was brought by journalists and authors who fear, with some good reason, that if they "associate" with terrorist groups (by talking to them or accompanying them on patrol or to their bases) that they would be arrested overseas and held indefinitely. They worry that because the US government identifies groups like Occupy London and Wikileaks as terrorists, that if they contacted them and traveled overseas, they could be subject to indefinite US military detention. If they can show that the fears of one of them are "reasonable" under the text of the law, that person can proceed to sue to have the law struck or changed.

They are *not* arguing that this will happen to them in the US, or to people who are simply political dissidents, or that they would be disappeared. It would be good to keep the hyperbole out of this going forward.

Let me say this again. Even in Wolf's account, even Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges are not arguing in the case that they could be arrested in the US and held indefinitely under the NDAA, that I can see in the two pieces presented. Their worries center around overseas travel, and in that sense, yeah, if the law is ambiguous then it should be fixed. But this is not about disappearing people in the US.

Paleocon wrote:

I was also of the impression that strip searches for detainees was lawful and ordinary procedure. I've never been arrested and plan if possible to avoid that experience altogether, but if I do find myself in that situation, I think I'd feel just a little bit more secure knowing that someone doesn't have a fiberglass shiv hidden in his ass crack.

I'll take my chances that I won't wind up in a holding cell with a member of the Sardaukar.

The problem here is that it makes arrest an option for punishing a person: just arrest someone and you get to molest them.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I was also of the impression that strip searches for detainees was lawful and ordinary procedure. I've never been arrested and plan if possible to avoid that experience altogether, but if I do find myself in that situation, I think I'd feel just a little bit more secure knowing that someone doesn't have a fiberglass shiv hidden in his ass crack.

I'll take my chances that I won't wind up in a holding cell with a member of the Sardaukar.

The problem here is that it makes arrest an option for punishing a person: just arrest someone and you get to molest them.

Was getting arrested not a punishment before?

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I was also of the impression that strip searches for detainees was lawful and ordinary procedure. I've never been arrested and plan if possible to avoid that experience altogether, but if I do find myself in that situation, I think I'd feel just a little bit more secure knowing that someone doesn't have a fiberglass shiv hidden in his ass crack.

I'll take my chances that I won't wind up in a holding cell with a member of the Sardaukar.

The problem here is that it makes arrest an option for punishing a person: just arrest someone and you get to molest them.

Was getting arrested not a punishment before?

No. Arrest is part of the investigation and prosecution. There's not supposed to be a punishment until there's due process establishing the person committed a crime. Sadly, that's a concept that's been worn away over the years, but it's still the lynchpin of one's civil rights.

Have you ever seen a restraint chair? Trust me. If they just wanted to punish you, they don't need an excuse to punish you.

Paleocon wrote:

Have you ever seen a restraint chair? Trust me. If they just wanted to punish you, they don't need an excuse to punish you.

I'm talking about the arresting officer You're also talking about an act they have the discretion to take, where if something happens to you they'll at least be buried in an avalanche of paperwork.

A mandatory strip search has no need for them to make a decision that can be criticized later and has no danger of going wrong for them. Maybe we can't prevent someone that's totally committed to punishing you from doing so, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for someone to think "if I arrest this person, there's some extra humiliation in it for them."

Like the article pointed out in the case of the trespasser nun, this is a great way to punish civil disobedience. Even if your arresting office and your jailers are sympathetic to you, they've got no choice: they have to strip you or risk their jobs.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Have you ever seen a restraint chair? Trust me. If they just wanted to punish you, they don't need an excuse to punish you.

I'm talking about the arresting officer You're also talking about an act they have the discretion to take, where if something happens to you they'll at least be buried in an avalanche of paperwork.

A mandatory strip search has no need for them to make a decision that can be criticized later and has no danger of going wrong for them. Maybe we can't prevent someone that's totally committed to punishing you from doing so, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for someone to think "if I arrest this person, there's some extra humiliation in it for them."

Like the article pointed out in the case of the trespasser nun, this is a great way to punish civil disobedience. Even if your arresting office and your jailers are sympathetic to you, they've got no choice: they have to strip you or risk their jobs.

The arresting officer isn't the one doing the strip search though. He hands off to the county jail. There they decide whether or not to strip search, which I imagine most would base on whether or not the arrested poses a risk of violence. If, as you assert, they do not have the discretion, they are simply reduced to trusting that folks picked up for possession but who also have a history of violence aren't hiding weapons.

I believe there should be limits on police powers, but I think this is probably the wrong place to draw the line.

Paleocon wrote:

The arresting officer isn't the one doing the strip search though. He hands off to the county jail. There they decide whether or not to strip search, which I imagine most would base on whether or not the arrested is poses a risk of violence.

from the article:

Florence, by the way, was arrested when his wife was pulled over for speeding (he was a passenger, and his son was in the back seat), and a check of his record showed an unpaid fine for an earlier offense. That record-check was wrong – the fine had been paid – but Florence spent a week in jail anyway, where he underwent the two strip searches.

...

After all, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent to the majority ruling, additional amicus curiae briefs revealed that strip searches have been inflicted upon citizens collared for driving with a noisy muffler or a busted headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell – even for violating a dog-leash law.

It looks like you don't have to be assessed to pose a risk of violence. From what I remember reading of the case, the point is that there's *no* discretion involved: it's about detention facilities that have a "everybody gets strip searched" policy.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The arresting officer isn't the one doing the strip search though. He hands off to the county jail. There they decide whether or not to strip search, which I imagine most would base on whether or not the arrested is poses a risk of violence.

from the article:

Florence, by the way, was arrested when his wife was pulled over for speeding (he was a passenger, and his son was in the back seat), and a check of his record showed an unpaid fine for an earlier offense. That record-check was wrong – the fine had been paid – but Florence spent a week in jail anyway, where he underwent the two strip searches.

...

After all, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent to the majority ruling, additional amicus curiae briefs revealed that strip searches have been inflicted upon citizens collared for driving with a noisy muffler or a busted headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell – even for violating a dog-leash law.

It looks like you don't have to be assessed to pose a risk of violence. From what I remember reading of the case, the point is that there's *no* discretion involved: it's about detention facilities that have a "everybody gets strip searched" policy.

None of which is done by the arresting officer. All of this is done at the holding facility. This is generally the county jail and is generally run either by the county sheriff's department or county corrections. It's not, as you seem to be indicating, like a police officer can arrest you and strip search you just to hassle you.

As you mention, the places where folks have had issues is in places with an "everybody gets strip searched" policy. And in that case, it is very hard to make the case that this is being perpetrated as a punishment rather than a security precaution.

Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The arresting officer isn't the one doing the strip search though. He hands off to the county jail. There they decide whether or not to strip search, which I imagine most would base on whether or not the arrested is poses a risk of violence.

from the article:

Florence, by the way, was arrested when his wife was pulled over for speeding (he was a passenger, and his son was in the back seat), and a check of his record showed an unpaid fine for an earlier offense. That record-check was wrong – the fine had been paid – but Florence spent a week in jail anyway, where he underwent the two strip searches.

...

After all, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent to the majority ruling, additional amicus curiae briefs revealed that strip searches have been inflicted upon citizens collared for driving with a noisy muffler or a busted headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell – even for violating a dog-leash law.

It looks like you don't have to be assessed to pose a risk of violence. From what I remember reading of the case, the point is that there's *no* discretion involved: it's about detention facilities that have a "everybody gets strip searched" policy.

None of which is done by the arresting officer. All of this is done at the holding facility. This is generally the county jail and is generally run either by the county sheriff's department or county corrections. It's not, as you seem to be indicating, like a police officer can arrest you and strip search you just to hassle you.

As you mention, the places where folks have had issues is in places with an "everybody gets strip searched" policy. And in that case, it is very hard to make the case that this is being perpetrated as a punishment rather than a security precaution.

Exactly.

In addition, while being arrested is not "punishment" in a legal sense, it's still an awful experience. There's nothing pleasant about it and to think that this is the straw that turns it into punishment is really weird.

Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It looks like you don't have to be assessed to pose a risk of violence. From what I remember reading of the case, the point is that there's *no* discretion involved: it's about detention facilities that have a "everybody gets strip searched" policy.

None of which is done by the arresting officer. All of this is done at the holding facility.

And the arresting officer won't be aware of the procedures at the holding facility? Sure he or she doesn't get to do it himself, but he knows its going to get done to you.

SixteenBlue wrote:

In addition, while being arrested is not "punishment" in a legal sense, it's still an awful experience. There's nothing pleasant about it and to think that this is the straw that turns it into punishment is really weird.

What turns it into punishment is when the experience is made more awful for the wrong reasons.

+++++

If they're really concerned with prisoners getting weapons in when it comes to that region, they should put them all in chastity belts. I'll take my blood on a knife over my sh*t on a dick any day. And that's not even getting into how much more invasive this must be for women.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It looks like you don't have to be assessed to pose a risk of violence. From what I remember reading of the case, the point is that there's *no* discretion involved: it's about detention facilities that have a "everybody gets strip searched" policy.

None of which is done by the arresting officer. All of this is done at the holding facility.

And the arresting officer won't be aware of the procedures at the holding facility? Sure he or she doesn't get to do it himself, but he knows its going to get done to you.

SixteenBlue wrote:

In addition, while being arrested is not "punishment" in a legal sense, it's still an awful experience. There's nothing pleasant about it and to think that this is the straw that turns it into punishment is really weird.

What turns it into punishment is when the experience is made more awful for the wrong reasons.

+++++

If they're really concerned with prisoners getting weapons in when it comes to that region, they should put them all in chastity belts. I'll take my blood on a knife over my sh*t on a dick any day. And that's not even getting into how much more invasive this must be for women.

Getting cuffed, put in a cop car, brought to jail, etc is all pretty awful and humiliating. It's jail for f*ck's sake. Why is it that a cop can't force you to do that for the wrong reasons but can once a strip search is involved?

As for the chastity belt thing, that just doesn't make sense. "If they don't want weapons are drugs why aren't they stopping rape?" Those are 2 completely different issues and solving one doesn't have any impact on the other and vice versa.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Getting cuffed, put in a cop car, brought to jail, etc is all pretty awful and humiliating. It's jail for f*ck's sake. Why is it that a cop can't force you to do that for the wrong reasons but can once a strip search is involved?

Aren't you ask for a perfect solution here? Just because a cop can force you to do all that for the wrong reason doesn't mean we should make it easier for him to do even more awful and humiliating things on top of that.

As for the chastity belt thing, that just doesn't make sense. "If they don't want weapons are drugs why aren't they stopping rape?" Those are 2 completely different issues and solving one doesn't have any impact on the other and vice versa.

They both involve penetration. Unlike a fiberglass shiv, the penis is one weapon no man forgets to leave the house without.

besides King Missile.