Police State

Anyone who believes that the US is "in the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state" simply does not know what he/she is babbling about. Full stop.

Zoinks said:

Elect Ron Paul President. Problem solved.

Maybe Paul is OK on foreign policy and civil liberties (and even then his views are idiosyncratic), but then the economy goes further down the toilet due to insane goldbuggery and a deregulatory frenzy.

suetonius said:

Anyone who believes that the US is "in the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state" simply does not know what he/she is babbling about. Full stop.

Maybe not "final stages", but you really need to pay more attention to what Obomber and our congresscritters have been up to.

jeffmarkel said:

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).

I think that is a pretty old video isn't it Jeff? I think its from pretty early on in that administration. This was a clear signal of what was to come.

Here's what I don't get about people like Maddow though. While she deserves credit for pointing this out, after the commercial break she will go to the mat for this guy and hit his opposition w/ hyperbole.

There's a pretty interesting book about this by Naomi Wolfe called The End of America

I ran across this video last night. This was from a movie that came out a few years prior to 9/11. They are talking about torturing someone to get some information about a possible terrorist act. Apparently, this was controversial not that long ago.

"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."

I'm taking the train down to NYC this weekend. Can you tell me where I can get tickets to these events?

Apart from my ridiculous post, this is a very interesting thread.

GL2 said:

I'm taking the train down to NYC this weekend. Can you tell me where I can get tickets to these events?

Sorry, the events are sold out!

I have posted this before, but I think it is appropriate in jeff's thread as well. It discusses the militarization of Amerika's police forces.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153062/militarizing_the_police%3A_how_the_drug_war_and_9_11_led_to_battle-dressed_cops_cracking_down_on_peaceful_protests/?page=1

I'm really surprised by the lack of outrage over the Administration's stance on this.

suetonius said:

Anyone who believes that the US is "in the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state" simply does not know what he/she is babbling about. Full stop.

That's not an argument, it's a contradiction. Sort of like putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala"

Student_Council said:

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.

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

While I too believe the US is not "in the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state", various laws have been enacted and are being enacted that could turn this place into one at the drop of a hat.

ridski said:

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

Works for me.

ctrzaska said:

ridski said:

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

Works for me.

Of course it does. That's the problem. The definition of "doing something illegal" can also now change at the drop of a hat.

ctrzaska said:

ridski said:

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

Works for me.

I assume you don't, say, wear a turban

First they came for the Muslims, but I wasn't a Muslim...

johnlockedema said:

I'm really surprised by the lack of outrage over the Administration's stance on this.

I'm not surprised. More like horrified.

GMCaesar said:

johnlockedema said:

I'm really surprised by the lack of outrage over the Administration's stance on this.

I'm not surprised. More like horrified.

Ditto.

http://gawker.com/5865089/20-things-you-should-know-about-americas-most-horrifying-new-law

To be fair, this issue needs to be clarified. The Feinstein amendment sought to temper or remove the detention powers from the Defense bill, but was voted down until the following compromise was offered. It then passed. I need to hear from Al Franken, for instance, why he thought this was remotely acceptable:

"An amendment from Dianne Feinstein passed as part of the Senate’s defense authorization bill yesterday punts one small aspect of detention policy to the courts, namely whether the US military can indefinitely hold an American citizen. Adam Serwer, who has had excellent coverage of the detention pieces of the defense bill, had this report:

'Can Americans be indefinitely detained by the military on suspicion of terrorism if arrested on American soil? Thursday evening the Senate added a compromise amendment to the defense spending bill that states: Maybe. Specifically, it says the bill does not alter current authorities relating to detention, leaving either side free to argue whether current law allows or prohibits indefinite military detention of Americans captured in the US [...]

The reason the compromise amendment worked is that it leaves the question of domestic military detention open, leaving the matter for Supreme Court to resolve should a future president decide to assert the authority to detain a US citizen on American soil. Senators who defended the detention provisions can continue to say that current law allows Americans to be detained based on the 2004 Hamdi v Rumsfeld case in which an American captured fighting in Afghanistan was held in military detention. Opponents can continue to point out that the Hamdi case doesn’t resolve whether or not Americans can be detained indefinitely without charge if captured in their own country, far from any declared battlefield. They have the better of the argument.'

Great. Leave it to Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito...

It's not surprising. Appalling, but not surprising.

For most Americans, if it's not on network TV news or, secondarily, on the front page of USA Today, it didn't happen. Even for more devoted news followers, information is sparse. Other than a blog post, The NY Times isn't writing about it either. The one NYT editorial referring to it buried the lede and talked instead about how it was bad for combatting terrorism, and that's really about Section 1032, not the even awfuller Section 1031.

Next they'll be crapping on our Second Amendment rights.

Oh - you must mean the one that says we have the right to bear arms while being part of a well-organized militia.

jeffmarkel said:

First they came for the Muslims, but I wasn't a Muslim...

Awesome, moving WWII-era statement.
However If I had a nickel for every time that statement was made since then and nothing came of it, I would be rich.

ridski said:

Student_Council said:

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.

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

While I too believe the US is not "in the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state", various laws have been enacted and are being enacted that could turn this place into one at the drop of a hat.

I've always been baffled that so-called small-government conservatives aren't bothered by the vastly increased governmental presence everywhere we go.

jeffmarkel said:

Oh - you must mean the one that says we have the right to bear arms while being part of a well-organized militia.

maybe the one in your world says that, but the one in mine and the Supreme Court's is pretty clear.

dave23 said:

ridski said:

Student_Council said:

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.

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

While I too believe the US is not "in the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state", various laws have been enacted and are being enacted that could turn this place into one at the drop of a hat.

I've always been baffled that so-called small-government conservatives aren't bothered by the vastly increased governmental presence everywhere we go.

I'm more bothered by the vastly increased government and municipal waste and bureaucracy that the U.S has seen in the past few decades.

To me the threat isn't the National Guardsmen in Penn Station, it's the redundant town administrators who make $100K plus cadillac benefits and six weeks' off. But that's just me.

I've been biting my tongue, but can you imagine the bleating if this came down with a Republican in the White House? Tee hee!

Count me among the outraged. This is a terrible thing.

I agree it's not a police state, because, while the police are acting like they have complete power towards their captives, they're not holding most of us captive and controlling us.

But it is a serious and severe breach of our rights. When one person's rights are trampled, the rights of all of us are trampled.

People who are concerned about their second amendment rights should be concerned about this, too. We should be concerned about all of everyone's rights.

I'm writing a letter to Senator Menendez, because he voted the wrong way on this issue. Please do the same, everyone.

johnlockedema, the outrage over the Patriot Act was deplorably faint. Americans of all colors failed to see how wrong it was.

Student_Council said:

dave23 said:

ridski said:

Student_Council said:

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.

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

While I too believe the US is not "in the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state", various laws have been enacted and are being enacted that could turn this place into one at the drop of a hat.

I've always been baffled that so-called small-government conservatives aren't bothered by the vastly increased governmental presence everywhere we go.

I'm more bothered by the vastly increased government and municipal waste and bureaucracy that the U.S has seen in the past few decades.

To me the threat isn't the National Guardsmen in Penn Station, it's the redundant town administrators who make $100K plus cadillac benefits and six weeks' off. But that's just me.

What are the stats on the increased waste? The defense budget has doubled in the last decade. And, as I'm sure you know, it was pretty high ten years ago. Those National Guardsman in Penn Station are the result of the doubling.

GMCaesar said:

ctrzaska said:

ridski said:

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

Works for me.

I assume you don't, say, wear a turban.

Nope.

I am actually more concerned with the explosion in the number of laws and the increase of laws that do not require mens rea. What this creates a Kafkaesque world were literally any of us could be charged, and very possibly convicted of a felony basically at the whim of prosecutors, because there are so many laws to choose from and many of them have no requirement of intent.

This is a silent and insidious increase in government power. And because it is hidden, unlike National Guard at train stations it is even more scary, as the monster unseen under the bed always is.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/12/12/no-guilty-mind-but-guilty-nonetheless/


The latest installment in the WSJ’s series on the expansion of federal offenses focuses on mens rea, which is Latin for “guilty mind.” It’s the idea that you have to intend to commit a crime to commit a crime. This is bedrock stuff.

But critics of the federal criminal justice system argue the government is criminalizing mistakes that might more appropriately be handled with civil fines or injunctions. Take the case of Lawrence Lewis, who was chief engineer at a military retirement home in Maryland when he pleaded guilty in federal court to violating the Clean Water Act.

His crime: In 2007, Lewis and his staff diverted a backed-up sewage system into an outside storm drain — one they long believed was connected to the city’s sewage-treatment system — to prevent flooding in an area where the sickest residents lived. In fact, the storm drain emptied into a creek that ultimately reaches the Potomac River.

He pleaded guilty because it was a strict liability case, meaning there was no mens rea requirement.

“I got a criminal record from my job — when I thought I was doing the right thing?” Lewis, 60 years old, told the Journal. Lewis was given one year’s probation and placed under court-ordered supervision.

The building’s manager and Lewis’s then-supervisor, retired Navy Capt. Craig Sackett, told the Journal it was long standard practice at the home to divert overflow into nearby storm drains if a backup occurred. This prevented floods within the building itself. Like Lewis, Sackett said he thought the flow was going into the district’s waste-treatment system.

He doesn’t know why Lewis was the one prosecuted. “It was either him or me,” Sackett says, “and they certainly talked to me.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on Lewis’s case.

For the Journal’s recent reports in the series — on how the explosion of criminal prosecutions is putting the squeeze civil cases and the ballooning asset-forfeiture system — click here and here.