Police State
Dec 9, 2011 at 8:03am Edited
Dec 9, 2011 at 8:29am Edited
It gets worse, too - if the "Protect IP Act/Stop Online Piracy Act" (one's the House version, the other is in the Senate) are passed, any website could be taken down, and its servers and its domain names confiscated, again without any judicial review, for acts as commonplace as most of the reposting we do on a daily basis here on MOL without a second thought.
As Mike Loukides, editor at O'Reilly & Associates and author on Internet-related topics, recently wrote
See also this Slate article, which fleshes out the details a little and gives some background.
As Mike Loukides, editor at O'Reilly & Associates and author on Internet-related topics, recently wrote
...PROTECT IP and SOPA lay the ground for much broader forms of censorship. And, while I don't like slippery slope arguments as a rule, this is one that scares me. If you remember the first days of Internet regulation, relatively few sites were taken down because they offered pornography; anti-porn legislation was abused to take down sites discussing contraception. Without any sort of court review, I foresee many fraudulent attempts to silence political opposition. If you're clever enough, almost anything can be claimed to be a copyright violation, especially if you don't have to go before a judge to defend the claim.
here
See also this Slate article, which fleshes out the details a little and gives some background.
Dec 9, 2011 at 8:31am Edited
Amazing that these are the only things that can Congress is able to do on a bipartisan basis.
"The United States is reaching the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state."
Sensationalize much?
"As often happens which such things, it's taking place without much notice."
Please cite historical examples of the template this is following.
Sensationalize much?
"As often happens which such things, it's taking place without much notice."
Please cite historical examples of the template this is following.
While jeffmarkel is a bit over the top, both the proposed laws he refers to are extremely damaging to individual liberty and human rights. And while reported neither has gotten the attention or outrage they deserve.
I wonder if any of these proposals could withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Haven't looked at the statutes or researched precedent, but some of what's posted here makes me question it under the takings clause (IP/SOPA), Fourth Amendment (seizure), Fifth Amendment (Due Process), and Sixth Amendment (right to trial).
Student_Council said:
"The United States is reaching the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state."
Sensationalize much?
No - I don't.
Student_Council said:
"The United States is reaching the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state."
Sensationalize much?
"As often happens which such things, it's taking place without much notice."
Please cite historical examples of the template this is following.
It happened here before:
" [Woodrow] Wilson displayed little regard for the rights of anyone whose opinions differed from his own. But textbooks take pains to insulate him from wrongdoing. "Congress," not Wilson, is credited with having passed the Espionage Act of June 1917 and the Sedition Act of the following year, probably the most serious attacks on the civil liberties of Americans since the short-lived Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. In fact, Wilson tried to strengthen the Espionage Act with a provision giving broad censorship powers directly to the president. Moreover, with Wilson's approval, his postmaster general used his new censorship powers to suppress all mail that was socialist, anti-British, pro-Irish, or that in any other way might, in his view, have threatened the war effort. Robert Goldstein served ten years in prison for producing The Spirit of '76, a film about the Revolutionary War that depicted the British, who were now our allies, unfavorably."
There's more....
http://www.utwatch.org/funfacts/woodrowwilson.html
...and that's just in America. A study of Germany in the 1930's is recommended.
"Ben Salmon was a Catholic conscientious objector during World War I and outspoken critic of Just War theology. The Catholic Church denounced him and the The New York Times described him as a "spy suspect." The US military (in which he was never inducted) charged him with desertion and spreading propaganda, then sentenced him to death (this was later revised to 25 years hard labor).[20] On June 5, 1917, Salmon wrote in a letter to President Wilson:
Regardless of nationality, all men are brothers. God is "our Father who art in heaven." The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is unconditional and inexorable. … The lowly Nazarene taught us the doctrine of non-resistance, and so convinced was he of the soundness of that doctrine that he sealed his belief with death on the cross. When human law conflicts with Divine law, my duty is clear. Conscience, my infallible guide, impels me to tell you that prison, death, or both, are infinitely preferable to joining any branch of the Army." -Wikipedia, "conscientious objector"
Regardless of nationality, all men are brothers. God is "our Father who art in heaven." The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is unconditional and inexorable. … The lowly Nazarene taught us the doctrine of non-resistance, and so convinced was he of the soundness of that doctrine that he sealed his belief with death on the cross. When human law conflicts with Divine law, my duty is clear. Conscience, my infallible guide, impels me to tell you that prison, death, or both, are infinitely preferable to joining any branch of the Army." -Wikipedia, "conscientious objector"
Dec 9, 2011 at 9:24am Edited
GMCaesar said:
"Ben Salmon was a Catholic conscientious objector during World War I and outspoken critic of Just War theology. The Catholic Church denounced him and the The New York Times described him as a "spy suspect."
?!?!?!?
Salmon's sentence of death was commuted.
For many blacks, a sentence of death was carried out, because one of the features of the Wilson administration was the recreation of the KKK. When "Birth of A Nation" was released, President Wilson endorsed its message, and the film inspired the re-establishment of the Klan, which of course increased the incidence of lynchings.
The reign of violence, sanctioned or ignored by law, is not foreign to these shores, despite what you have been taught in school.
For many blacks, a sentence of death was carried out, because one of the features of the Wilson administration was the recreation of the KKK. When "Birth of A Nation" was released, President Wilson endorsed its message, and the film inspired the re-establishment of the Klan, which of course increased the incidence of lynchings.
The reign of violence, sanctioned or ignored by law, is not foreign to these shores, despite what you have been taught in school.
A sure sign that you live in a police state.
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.
Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.
Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.
The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.
China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison. (That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China's extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)
jeffmarkel said:
The United States is reaching the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state.
Well we can only hope that Obama & Co. will use these new powers to dismantle Fox News and lock up Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
Sorry, Lost - much as I despise them, I certainly don't hope that. I would love to see them disappear, but only because they cease to have viewers and voters - it would be just as bad as locking up Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison and shutting down Daily Kos. You were probably making a joke but I don't think this is a subject ripe for humor.
It's just interesting to me given that Obama's the Pres that the Right isn't ballistic about this, aside, I assume from the Pauls.
The Right will only get worked up when they figure out that it could be used against THEM as easily as against Islamic terrorists, and they're unlikely to figure that out until some rightwing terrorist gets thrown into Gitmo.
More anecdotals (all mine) supporting Jeff's thesis.
Police SWAT and homeland security units marching around NYC with machine guns.
In the town/schoolstem in which I work, police presence in the school hallways ( and classrooms!) is ubiquitous.
Friendly fascism, indeed!
Police SWAT and homeland security units marching around NYC with machine guns.
In the town/schoolstem in which I work, police presence in the school hallways ( and classrooms!) is ubiquitous.
Friendly fascism, indeed!
wharf, I'm interested to hear you have them there as well. We have security guards but not actual police except for GREAT (Gang Resistance Education and Training) which is run by the U.S. Marshall Service. The high schools probably do have regular PD officers but I am not sure. When we see an actual police officer it is because there is a criminal complaint of some sort. As in sale of drugs, etc.
wharfrat said:
More anecdotals (all mine) supporting Jeff's thesis.
Police SWAT and homeland security units marching around NYC with machine guns.
In the town/schoolstem in which I work, police presence in the school hallways ( and classrooms!) is ubiquitous.
Friendly fascism, indeed!
In Livingston? I seem to recall that is where you teach.
Dec 11, 2011 at 6:27pm Edited
Whoever posted this on youtube has a hardon for "FEMA" detention camps, hence the title on the clip. That seems hyperbolic to me - military detention is the way they plan to go. That it's un-Constitutional in a bunch of different ways no longer seems to matter to anyone, so the little notion of "Posse Comitatus" is moot - especially since the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act of 2012), which is currently awaiting the President's signature, seems to abolish it. (The "Posse Comitatus Act" forbids US military action for law enforcement purposes within US borders).
Jeff,
Thanks for posting. I am in complete agreement. However, I feel this starts with the people, not the other way around. We're almost in a state of mind where we beg the police/military to make our decisions for us. We prosecute children for crimes today that years ago we would handle on our own.
Thanks for posting. I am in complete agreement. However, I feel this starts with the people, not the other way around. We're almost in a state of mind where we beg the police/military to make our decisions for us. We prosecute children for crimes today that years ago we would handle on our own.
A police state is commonly defined as one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population.
Let's take them one at a time.
Social: this coming weekend I can do whatever the heck I want to, including going into NYC to attend a gay Mongolian Jewish dance, or perhaps a Satan-worshiping ritual. or I could just sit home and troll Internet chat rooms for friends or enemies.
Economic: I currently hold a private-sector job that I can quit anytime I want. I can start a business, or go back to school, change careers, or give away/squander every dime I have and go be a missionary abroad or something.
Political. Today on the walk to my office in Lower Manhattan there were several dozen protesters being loud and obnoxious across from Zuccotti Park. NYPD stood there and watched. This past weekend there was a GOP debate where candidates spoke out against the President. Heck, if I wanted to, I could run for president, stand on a soapbox in downtown South orange, and rail against President Obama.
Add it all up and it doesn't seem to me that "The United States is reaching the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state," as is the premise of this thread.
Let's take them one at a time.
Social: this coming weekend I can do whatever the heck I want to, including going into NYC to attend a gay Mongolian Jewish dance, or perhaps a Satan-worshiping ritual. or I could just sit home and troll Internet chat rooms for friends or enemies.
Economic: I currently hold a private-sector job that I can quit anytime I want. I can start a business, or go back to school, change careers, or give away/squander every dime I have and go be a missionary abroad or something.
Political. Today on the walk to my office in Lower Manhattan there were several dozen protesters being loud and obnoxious across from Zuccotti Park. NYPD stood there and watched. This past weekend there was a GOP debate where candidates spoke out against the President. Heck, if I wanted to, I could run for president, stand on a soapbox in downtown South orange, and rail against President Obama.
Add it all up and it doesn't seem to me that "The United States is reaching the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state," as is the premise of this thread.
I don't deny there are instances and anecdotes to support an opinion that the U.S. has moved too far in the direction of suppressing rights. That is not necessarily my opinion but I can understand such an opinion.
But that is an entirely different thing from a "police state" as per its commonly accepted definition.
My point is that any view that the U.S. is a police state or very close to being one is a fringe view befitting an Oliver Stone movie.
But that is an entirely different thing from a "police state" as per its commonly accepted definition.
My point is that any view that the U.S. is a police state or very close to being one is a fringe view befitting an Oliver Stone movie.
The left seems very silent about this on a national level, wonder why? No marches, no Hollywood limousine liberals talking it up. Strange.
I'm sure there was a nice selection of entertainments to be had in Berlin in the late '30s.
Just because they aren't coming for you doesn't mean they aren't coming for someone else down the street.
Here's a piece of good news: "Amid criticism about the way New York City police officers enforce marijuana laws, Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly issued a memo to commanders this week reiterating that officers are not to arrest people who have small amounts of marijuana in their possession unless it is in public view.
The New York Legislature decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana in the 1970s, making possession of 25 grams or less a violation of the law that in most cases would not bring a jail sentence. But possessing even small amounts of marijuana in public view remains a misdemeanor.
Just over 50,000 people were arrested on marijuana possession charges last year, a vast majority of them members of minorities and male. Critics say that as part of the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy, officers routinely tell suspects to empty their pockets and then, if marijuana is displayed, arrest them for having the drugs in public view, thereby pushing thousands of people toward criminality and into criminal justice system."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/nyregion/minor-marijuana-possession-charges-require-public-view.html
Just because they aren't coming for you doesn't mean they aren't coming for someone else down the street.
Here's a piece of good news: "Amid criticism about the way New York City police officers enforce marijuana laws, Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly issued a memo to commanders this week reiterating that officers are not to arrest people who have small amounts of marijuana in their possession unless it is in public view.
The New York Legislature decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana in the 1970s, making possession of 25 grams or less a violation of the law that in most cases would not bring a jail sentence. But possessing even small amounts of marijuana in public view remains a misdemeanor.
Just over 50,000 people were arrested on marijuana possession charges last year, a vast majority of them members of minorities and male. Critics say that as part of the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy, officers routinely tell suspects to empty their pockets and then, if marijuana is displayed, arrest them for having the drugs in public view, thereby pushing thousands of people toward criminality and into criminal justice system."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/nyregion/minor-marijuana-possession-charges-require-public-view.html
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I'm not sure why the mainstream press is not covering this one - too complicated for them to explain in elementary school vocabulary, probably. Please read the linked article, and do some followup investigations if you're doubtful of single-sourced stories. There's plenty out there, just not on TV or in newspapers.
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2447-Indefinite-military-detention-for-U-S-citizens-now-in-the-hands-of-a-secretive-conference-committee-