Can the USA truly "evolve" into a police state?

Great Debates
21

I can’t really speak to the Wilson aspect, but during wars, there are restrictions to civil liberties. The assuption is that once the war is over, those restrictions end. Currently, however, we are “at war” and it really looks like we’ll never stop being at war.

Sure, we have expanded a few civil rights, like gay marriage, but the government gets to see where we go and who we talk to, what we buy, what we search for on the internet, and are on the brink of having literal eyes in the sky, as if video cameras everywhere wasn’t enough. The justification is “fighting terrorism.” And the details are secret. Reporters and their sources are being pursued using anti-terror laws. Rather than explain and rationalize their activities to the public, the government tries to hide the existence of them.

Of course we can “evolve” into a police state. We’re in the middle of doing so.

22

Well, government surveillance might point the way to oppression, but government surveillance in and of itself is no infringement on civil liberties. You have zero privacy anyway, get over it.

23

I think that’s called putting up the white flag.

All you need are some simple privacy protections written into law. It’s not difficult:

Except your ‘representatives’ don’t appear to represent you, so perhaps it is a little tricky.

24

We’re also in the middle of evolving into a socialist state (like Sweden) because we’ve taken our second big step (Medicare was the first) toward a national health care system.

We’re in the middle of evolving into an empire, because we’re about to attack Syria.

We’re in the middle of evolving into an isolationist nation, because we’re bringing troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

We’re in the middle of evolving into an anarchist nation, because Congress is about to shut down the government by refusing to pay its debts.

We’re ALWAYS in the middle of evolving, and into just about anything you can name.

25

One issue is that until recently, and especially from about 1950’s to 1980’s, the Supreme Court was a major impetus to force freedom upon the American people. The court forced states to remove segregation in all aspects of life; gave people mostly freedom from “vagrancy” and other arbitrary arrest excuses. The court demanded that people be given basic rights and protection from illegal police action. The court emphasized the power of free speech.

The current crop of SCOTUS justices it seems were selected more for their ability to pass the abortion litmus test somehow or other, rather than a commitment to the principles that made America the great nation it was.

Certainly, they are the last protection of the fourth amendment against the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the secret FISA courts; or even the citizens’ first amendment rights to speak about warrants served on them. If Roberts, Scalia, or any of those “right-wing” judges cared about the Republic the was we understand “right wing”, less government intrusion into the citizens’ lives, they would not be rubber-stamping laws that trample their rights.

Trust congress or the states to pass whatever kneejerk law is required to make America safe or Think of The Children. Hacking, bullying, “preventing voter fraud”, filling in marshy property, even collecting molted eagle feathers - you name it someone has passed a law against it.

There are obvious examples of the police state - ID for the last decade plus has been needed for travel - aircraft, trains and (I think I read) even long distance busses(?). People who cross the line are tossed in jail for increasingly longer times for less serious offenses. (Bradley Manning, for example, got twice the sentence of the guy who sold CIA agent identities directly to the Soviets). Once convicted, you are forever cursed - whether it’s a sex offender essentially forbidden to ever have a fixed address, or a convicted felon forbidden from voting for your elected officials even after you served your sentence. People are routinely given drug tests for trivial reasons - not because they operate passenger vehicles or dangerous equipment, but because legislators or administrators have it in for them.

IN 1984 Orwell fantasized about a government that had a spy camera in every home. What he didn’t forsee is that we have essentially the same thing - we track your cell phone, we tap your phone and read your email and StriaghtDope postings - but Orwell missed the ability to use the NSA’s fancy computers and search algorithms to almost intelligently pick out key and relevant data from that giant mass, and produce details and hone in on precisely what they want without the need for the massive workforce that hampered the Stasi. Oh, and all that detail - it’s stored until they need to re-analyze it, or until one of the NSA spooks turns into your private stalker because you dated his ex.

26

That’s not freedom. Gay people can do what they want.

A state recognition of a de facto situation isn’t an act of freedom.

Keep to the subject.

27

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Refresh my memory–when was that repealed?

28

I think gay marriage is more of an equality issue. Equality is not the same as freedom - we can all be oppressed equally.

29

Well put.

30

There’ more truth to the claim that torture brings about useful information than the idea that there is this search algorithm and we all should shudder because THEY (you know how they are, right?) will figure out all the details.

No such algorithm exists and it’s one juicy BS being promulgated.

But, it seems it works because… well, Government says they have it and “experts” say so too on CNN :rolleyes:

31

What do you mean by “police state?” Was a black person living in the deep south in 1850 living in a police state? Was a black person living under Jim Crow living in a police state?

32

Nonsense, given that limitations on government snooping are a well-defined part of what the Founders regarded and legally established as civil liberties.

Please tell me that you aren’t going to trot out the “durrrr, Amurzonn and teh Gooogly collect the same kina stuff” rationalization.

33

The NSA was doing speech-to-text recognition in the early 1990’s. They had gizmos that were pointed at the telco microwave towers, recorded and analyzed every conversation, and store the relevant ones. Current thought is they are storing almost anything they can get their hands on.

You don’t think they ahve the tech to rival Google? Heck, lawyers analyzing gigabytes of text emails have similar search engines, they just don’t have the same amount of data. Yes, you’re likely safe unless you use the wrong combinations of words, or an association is somehow drawn between you and another “person of interest”.

Look up the case of Maher Arar. Maher Arar - Wikipedia He met with a fellow Syrian immigrant, a person who had previously met with a known fanatic. He then helped the guy with some financial problem. On his way back from Tunisia, at JFK, he was detained, and this Canadian citizen was “deported” with no right to counsel to Syria rather than Canada, where he was tortured - including questions provided by the US and Canadian authorities.

The Syrians even let him go after a year decding he was not a terrorist. Canada settled on their case for $10million. The USA continues to insist he is a terrorist, he is on a no-fly list, his lawsuit against them cannot proceed because the information it concerns is classified for “national security” reasons.

So, for a third-hand connection to a real jihadist type, he spent a year illegally kidnapped and tortured. When he seeks redress under the law he is blocked by state secrets, and is still forbidden to fly anywhere that approaches US airspace. Imagine what would have happened if the USA wer a police state?

Fortunately freer and more democratic countries like Syria are fully satisfied he is not a terrorist.

So much for the “what are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide” situation.

34

Can the US evolve into a police state? The answer is yes and we’ve be fools to believe it impossible. Will the US evolve into a police state? I think almost certainly no.

35

Well, that was kind of my point. There is no algorithm today that can distinguish between sarcasm and a factual statement. Arar’s case is a simple alert based on factual statements which goes like “show me 3rd level connection of Arar to <name>”. in other words, that’s what LinkedIn can show you and that’s as simple as counting 1,2,3; i.e. there’s noting “smart” about it. All the “technology” talk about “intelligence” of data analysis is a pure BS - simple fail is this “no-fly list” that is based on just a name, as in: last name + first name. That’s it! Bulletproof, eh?

And, I agree, Arar’s case should be an absolute warning to how weak the whole idea is.

As I pointed out in other threads, when you put together mentally ill or desperate ones caught in an entrapment operation or those (like Arar) caught based on ill-conceived “connections” you have at least 95% of all the “terrorism” cases since 9/11, the fear factory is what people should be worried about.

However, history of US is the idea that at any point in time only certain groups are targeted with carefully designed all-encompassing campaigns (blacks, natives, mexicans, gays, communists, french, brown people, japanese-americans, cubans, catholics… you name it) that “made sense” at “that time” so I can totally understand the “not a single eff is given” by population at large because they very well know SOMEONE ELSE will get beaten up, jailed or murdered and NOT THEM - it worked before and we’re still okay so why worry?

Therefore, decades will pass and we’ll remember this fondly just like we recall Jim Crow Laws.

36

Can and will (or, more correctly is) is in the eye of the beholder on the receiving end of police state tactics.

Are you, perhaps arguing that because you don’t feel it, it doesn’t exist?

37

I believe that over time the US has become less of a police state and I expect the trend to continue. I am not happy about the recent actions by the NSA but they pale compared to what the government was doing in the 50’s and 60’s. As it becomes easier to share information on the internet I believe it will become even harder for the government to turn into a police state.

38

I posit this; rather than a Police State, we are evolving into a Security State. IMO the difference is this - a Police State imposes order, whereas a Security State imposes security.

The difference, I leave as an exercise to the reader.