9 ms·

"Can we call it a police state now?" I saw the question on Reddit after a different revelation last month. I feel like we're going to ask that question more an

by spodek 13y ago

"Can we call it a police state now?" I saw the question on Reddit after a different revelation last month. I feel like we're going to ask that question more and more. I can only hope more and more of us are inspired, as Snowden was by Levinson (Lavabit's CEO) and many of us have been by both of them, and we act to protect ourselves and constrain our governments from overreaching to where they can't help repeating the disasters of previous overreaching governments.

criley2 13y ago
My reply on Reddit when I see people bring that up is simple: You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. A police state has no distinction between legislation and executive. Our legislation is currently investigating the president for: * CIA coverup of the attack on our Benghazi consulate' * IRS targeting of political opposition They're planning on using their primary power, the power over our nations money, to enforce not only strict budget cuts, but requiring that the President's signature legislative victory be repealed. That's before we discuss the court and how they've treated the President. Remember when they threw out his NLRB nominations as unconstitutional? Now someone will bring up spying, but I urge you to realize that Congressional distaste for spying is centralized among the less important Congresspeople. Our leadership on both sides of the aisle is largely supportive of the infrastructure, seeing as they wrote and passed all of the laws that make it possibly. That's not an executive behaving without regard to legislation, it's one working with them. I don't see a police state, and I think being cavalier with terminology does a grave injustice to lessons of the past and the people who have experienced (and are experiencing) a totalitarian government with truly no checks and balances.
- roc 13y ago
  So... as long as there are two or more parties within the State, squabbling about issues unrelated to the over-reach of executive power, spying, police militarization, etc -- it's not a Police State? Surely every police state has had factions that have vied for political primacy via such side-shows. That can't possibly be a disqualifier.
- nazgulnarsil 13y ago
  I think you're being pedantic. No knock, no warrant, no redress when they murder you or a loved one for your family = police state, plain and simple.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    I hope pg is reading these comments and is pleased that hn has become one more of the innumerable discussion boards where calling the U.S. a "police state, plain and simple" has become part of the everyday discourse. Yuck. I know there has always been a strain of the paranoid (sometimes well-earned) in hacker culture, but presumably it wasn't what this site was built to highlight.
    - 00rion 13y ago
      If you don't like the conversation then leave.
      - ispolin 13y ago
        If he doesn't like the conversation, let's encourage him to stay and provide evidence for his point so that HN doesn't become an echo chamber. I find this model very helpful: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
      - derefr 13y ago
        I've done that! I did that with Slashdot, and Reddit, and a few other places besides. You guys seem to follow me into whatever new place I end up, and start the politics conversation back up again. Why can't it be you guys who leave for once? :c
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - MisterWebz 13y ago
      You can increase the quality of HN threads by replying to such "paranoid" comments with a counter-argument instead of complaining.
- pkinsky 13y ago
  >Our legislation is currently investigating the president for: * CIA coverup of the attack on our Benghazi consulate' * IRS targeting of political opposition These investigations are politically motivated, effectively battles in a war between factions of the aristocracy.
- grandalf 13y ago
  Those distinctions are increasingly meaningless in the US. The entire NSA spying program was designed to thwart the separation of powers and to circumvent the democratic process.
- RyanZAG 13y ago
  I agree with you in that a key difference would be if people were held accountable for illegal acts. However, simply investigating the president is not enough - it would actually need to be possible for him to be accused and held liable. An investigation in which the conclusion is already obvious and no one will be held accountable is not really an investigation, it is only smoke and mirrors. Throwing out one set of nominations as unconstitutional among hundreds is the same smoke and mirrors. The ability to create a public drama while the real decisions occur underneath is certainly no proof of the lack of totalitarian government. Not that I'd say the USA is a totalitarian government, just that your proof is very shaky.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Why are you so sure these programs are illegal? Might it be possible that you find them distasteful, but that under our current Constitutional and legal regime, there's nothing for anyone to be "held accountable" for?
    - syncerr 13y ago
      The implication is that it's unconstitutional. And a violation on such scale...
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        I haven't seen any evidence of programs that are prima facie unconstitutional. You may wish that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant to search any of your communications, but that's not how the courts have interpreted it. Nations have been opening messages that crossed their borders for centuries. That's not to say each and every instance of these programs has always been scrupulously constitutional, but we never expect our government to get it right 100% of the time. That's why the FISA court exists. You may wish its oversight were stronger or its opinions always public, but again, nothing about how it operates is obviously unconstitutional. Certainly not as self-evidently as some people around here seem to assume.
        13y ago
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I don't see a police state That's because you haven't been on the wrong end of it yet. Many others in the same state have, and their experience trumps yours.
- a3n 13y ago
  The Congress is not investigating the President with any desire to get to the truth, they (the House) are merely keeping this in the public eye to make him and Clinton look bad for Clinton's run for the presidency. We do not have a functioning legislature.
- mcv 13y ago
  > You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. I think you insult their experience much more by allowing your country to become a police state while denying what's happening. It's true, it could be far, far worse. But that doesn't change the fact that the US is rapidly moving into that direction. The fact that the executive branch and the legislature both support the police state, doesn't make it any less of a police state. Yes, you can call it something else, but a police state by any other name stinks just as much.
- chernevik 13y ago
  "Can we call it a police state now?" is a question, and one that by its nature should be asked before the answer is "yes".
  - dreamfactory 13y ago
    Except when it's a rhetorical question
- madaxe 13y ago
  You have a distinction between legislative and executive in principle. In practice, however, the tail wags the dog.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  > You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. Did you live in a police state? I have. What police state calls itself "police state"? Hint: no state calls itself that. There is always a nice fluffy propaganda label slapped on top. "Freedom Loving Republic Of ..." > Our legislation is currently investigating the president for: Oh look, two investigations. Do you want a list of all the new developments that have been happening recently with leaks. I suspect you are familiar with them. > I don't see a police state, and I think being cavalier with terminology I see the beginning of one. Police states don't often turn police states overnight. There is a slow process of erosion going on. > does a grave injustice to lessons of the past and the people who have experienced (and are experiencing) a totalitarian government with truly no checks and balances. For one, it depends what you compare it to. You choose to compare against other states. Ok there are lot of fucked up states. So still doing well there. Now there is another way to compare and to compare a country by its own propaganda, that is what people want or believe that country to be. "We love freedom" (yet we imprison and assassinate people without a trial). "We love privacy" (yet we spy on everyone). "We respect human right" (yet we torture people). Should I continue? Another way to compare is historically, compare US against US say 15 years ago. I would say things got worse. Again if Somalia did this, nobody would care. When US does this, it is very serious. People expect more from US and US has more power. So a 500 lb gorilla not behaving nicely is a lot worse than an angry dog.
  - resu_nimda 13y ago
    > Ok there are lot of fucked up states. So still doing well there. > Again if Somalia did this, nobody would care. I think you've just illustrated his point...Those fucked up states? Those are the actual police states (some of them at least). The whole point is that you can't just gloss over them, that's the injustice. I absolutely agree that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but calling it a police state is hyperbole that's not really helpful. It's like calling the US a third-world country because you saw a homeless camp. It belies a lack of perspective as to what an actual third-world country is.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- jellicle 13y ago
  > A police state has no distinction between legislation and executive. What does that have to do with anything? There are any number of democracies in the world where that is true; google "responsible government" to learn more. The head of each executive agency in Westminster parliamentary systems is an elected legislator... The essential characteristics of a "police state" involve excessive police supervision of the day-to-day activities of the citizenry, generally with the goal of disrupting and discouraging activism against the government.
- carpalarp 13y ago
  First, let me start by saying that I understand your position, and I can see how you arrived at it, but that I disagree with your assessment. Using your own argument, you primarily rely on the distinction between legislative and executive branches as the determining factor on if police state = true. While I think it a bad argument in the first place (as it ignores all the nuances of what can constitute a police state, and ignores the various definitions of the word), I will allow for the time being that it is an argument worth having, and will simply assert that we currently have almost no distinction between the legislative branch and executive branches (I would also argue the judicial as well). Here is why. All three branches are compromised from multiple angles. Angle 1. K Street (massive corporations and regulatory capture) Mostly affects congress, but has reaching effects in the other two branches. (elections/nominations in the exec, etc) Angle 2. Dirty info. When the executive starts to gobble up everything on everyone, everyone becomes manipulatable. I think there is good academic standing to be had on the argument that many of our congresspeople are being blackmailed or manipulated in some other way by the executive. Lack of use of tradition checks. We have a very specific checks and balances system, but because of the merging of the three branches that I propose is true, a simple test would be to see how often any of the checks systems have actually been utilized. How often have any of the following occurred? Veto's, impeachment, removal of persons from office, declaration of an act as unconstitutional...etc. In short, the three branches are in the process of merging (if they haven't already for all intents and purposes) All the things that you claim congress is pursuing against the president are part of the media based Hegelian dialectic. They are essentially none issues. For example, on Benghazi, the congressional intel committee probably was more involved or at least more aware of what happened that the POTUS was. But they are investigating? They are the controlled opposition. It is you, not anyone else, who is being cavalier with your terminology, and the implied assertion that because it's not as bad as X example in the past or present is a dangerous road, as it essentially encourages the "it's not so bad, so why are you complaining?" attitude. Also, who fucking cares if someone who has once experienced a "real police state" is "offended" by someone else's assertion of a police state. This is a slimy tactic used by people like the JDF...
- mzs 13y ago
  Criley, have you lived in a police state? I did. I don't offend easily but my advice to you is that unless you had a dog in this race by living in a police state yourself, please think harder about saying what I will or will not be insulted by.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  unfortunately we seem to have gone from a system of checks and balances involving the executive branch, legislative, and judicial, to one of judicial, democrat, and republican. and the press just plays dead
- zerooneinfinity 13y ago
  'My police state is worse then your police state!'
- venomsnake 13y ago
  It is not so simple - trends are important. For now few things are clearly visible: 1. US spends disproportionately on security and surveillance. 2. There is mission creep and mission search in all security related branches. 3. Vague laws gives prosecutors insane amounts of heavy mallets with which to threaten people - if 95% of trials end with guilty plea and a deal - due process is illusion. 4. US is having very high incarceration per capital ratio. And while 4 has leveled in the last few years I think the other are accelerating. Of course it is not impossible to be reversed. Or even that hard.
- graeme 13y ago
  These issues aren't black and white. Calling the US a police state is perhaps unhelpful. Emerging police state may be more accurate. The people who use such language note trends. The USA still has liberty, but things are moving in the wrong direction. An article is on the front page on the increasing militarization of police forces. This level of police action surpasses the level of state violence in many police states. I've lived in one police state: Cuba. In many ways, the Cubans were freer of speech than Americans are, and they faced less police intrusion in their lives. And, in other ways, the Cubans were less free and faced more restrictions on speech. Chiefly, when someone decided to step out of line and move from passive complainer to actual threat to the state. My point is this. The USA is still a free country. Citizens enjoy great liberty. However, there are many elements of US society that surpass the excesses of 'police states'. Those trends are increasing, not decreasing. Pointing out that the institutions of American democracy still exist and exercise certain functions does not refute any concerns about increasing state violence. When is the appropriate moment to voice concerns that the USA is moving towards becoming a police state? Once it happens, it will be too late.
- Groxx 13y ago
  This is rather silly. It's only a police state when there is literally no distinction, and the leader has absolute, unquestioned power, and always gets their way? Has this ever actually existed? It's a continuum. All such terms are. Shouldn't people be upset when the current location swings noticeably in an undesirable direction? What else should it be called? "Can we call it a 45% police state with intermittent oversight favoring the executive branch yet?" And anyway. Why get upset when others get a taste of something bad? Instead of being demeaned by it, why not support, since you know how bad it can get? Whenever stuff like this comes up, it's echoed by "That's insulting, in my day..." as if that somehow makes what's happening now not bad. This isn't a contest for who knows / has lived in the worst governing body.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  >You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. Surely as a logical, intelligent HN poster you understand that this is not a valid counterargument? It is rhetorically quite a persuasive statement, but if you have a strong argument why is an emotional appeal necessary? >A police state has no distinction between legislation and executive. So when secret courts start popping up, what does that mean to you? When repressive arms of the state are free to exercise unrestricted surveillance despite prohibitive legislation, what does that mean to you? The names of things mean very little. How they function is what's important.
spoiledtechie 13y ago
I challenge you to stop asking about it and stand up to do something about it.
nicholassmith 13y ago
The final difference between a true police state and now is that they're allowed to say that they're not allowed to say anything, or that's how it feels.
- CodeMage 13y ago
  No, they aren't. I agree with @criley wholeheartedly: stop calling the US a police state. There's plenty to criticize without having to resort to blatant falsehoods.
at-fates-hands 13y ago
I don't know about a police state, but I've maintained for a while we're clearly living in a very dystopian society. The problem now is who's going to step into the vacuum and start providing services these people are being persecuted for?? I think this is the real issue. The further you push people down, the more they scatter and go further underground. Sad, sad state of affairs for this country. . .
buro9 13y ago
It is a surveillance state, the police state follows.
neutronicus 13y ago
So, my apartment-mate last year was from Belarus. I got in a bicycle accident on my way home, and somehow managed to get myself home (I don't remember this part) with my face pretty much split open. So, I called 911, and an ambulance and some cops came. The cops asked him some questions. He freaked out. I got this lecture the next day about how he didn't sign up for this, how I needed to keep his name out of my trouble, how I'm bad news, etc. I couldn't help but think that talking to the police meant something very, very different where he's from than where I am. Food for thought.
- mjolk 13y ago
  While it's a common belief that the police in Belarus are reasonably corrupt, this is usually limited to bribery. Perhaps his visa was expired?
  - neutronicus 13y ago
    Grad student, so not likely.
- yardie 13y ago
  Reminds me of the time I called the police to report an attempted break-in. An hour later they showed up and immediately ran my ID for warrants, I assume. Now I'm on the defensive because even if I wanted to call the police I probably won't.
markkat 13y ago
IMO we are currently in a surveillance state. I wrote my rationale on this on this 2 months ago: http://hubski.com/pub?id=88146 http://hubski.com/pub?id=88146 In short, the difference between a surveillance state and a police state is a matter of nature, but they have capabilities in common. I think a police state will likely follow.

by spodek 13y ago

criley2 13y ago

My reply on Reddit when I see people bring that up is simple: You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. A police state has no distinction between legislation and executive. Our legislation is currently investigating the president for: * CIA coverup of the attack on our Benghazi consulate' * IRS targeting of political opposition They're planning on using their primary power, the power over our nations money, to enforce not only strict budget cuts, but requiring that the President's signature legislative victory be repealed. That's before we discuss the court and how they've treated the President. Remember when they threw out his NLRB nominations as unconstitutional? Now someone will bring up spying, but I urge you to realize that Congressional distaste for spying is centralized among the less important Congresspeople. Our leadership on both sides of the aisle is largely supportive of the infrastructure, seeing as they wrote and passed all of the laws that make it possibly. That's not an executive behaving without regard to legislation, it's one working with them. I don't see a police state, and I think being cavalier with terminology does a grave injustice to lessons of the past and the people who have experienced (and are experiencing) a totalitarian government with truly no checks and balances.

roc 13y ago
So... as long as there are two or more parties within the State, squabbling about issues unrelated to the over-reach of executive power, spying, police militarization, etc -- it's not a Police State? Surely every police state has had factions that have vied for political primacy via such side-shows. That can't possibly be a disqualifier.
nazgulnarsil 13y ago
I think you're being pedantic. No knock, no warrant, no redress when they murder you or a loved one for your family = police state, plain and simple.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I hope pg is reading these comments and is pleased that hn has become one more of the innumerable discussion boards where calling the U.S. a "police state, plain and simple" has become part of the everyday discourse. Yuck. I know there has always been a strain of the paranoid (sometimes well-earned) in hacker culture, but presumably it wasn't what this site was built to highlight.
  - 00rion 13y ago
    If you don't like the conversation then leave.
    - ispolin 13y ago
      If he doesn't like the conversation, let's encourage him to stay and provide evidence for his point so that HN doesn't become an echo chamber. I find this model very helpful: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
    - derefr 13y ago
      I've done that! I did that with Slashdot, and Reddit, and a few other places besides. You guys seem to follow me into whatever new place I end up, and start the politics conversation back up again. Why can't it be you guys who leave for once? :c
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - MisterWebz 13y ago
    You can increase the quality of HN threads by replying to such "paranoid" comments with a counter-argument instead of complaining.
pkinsky 13y ago
>Our legislation is currently investigating the president for: * CIA coverup of the attack on our Benghazi consulate' * IRS targeting of political opposition These investigations are politically motivated, effectively battles in a war between factions of the aristocracy.
grandalf 13y ago
Those distinctions are increasingly meaningless in the US. The entire NSA spying program was designed to thwart the separation of powers and to circumvent the democratic process.
RyanZAG 13y ago
I agree with you in that a key difference would be if people were held accountable for illegal acts. However, simply investigating the president is not enough - it would actually need to be possible for him to be accused and held liable. An investigation in which the conclusion is already obvious and no one will be held accountable is not really an investigation, it is only smoke and mirrors. Throwing out one set of nominations as unconstitutional among hundreds is the same smoke and mirrors. The ability to create a public drama while the real decisions occur underneath is certainly no proof of the lack of totalitarian government. Not that I'd say the USA is a totalitarian government, just that your proof is very shaky.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Why are you so sure these programs are illegal? Might it be possible that you find them distasteful, but that under our current Constitutional and legal regime, there's nothing for anyone to be "held accountable" for?
  - syncerr 13y ago
    The implication is that it's unconstitutional. And a violation on such scale...
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      I haven't seen any evidence of programs that are prima facie unconstitutional. You may wish that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant to search any of your communications, but that's not how the courts have interpreted it. Nations have been opening messages that crossed their borders for centuries. That's not to say each and every instance of these programs has always been scrupulously constitutional, but we never expect our government to get it right 100% of the time. That's why the FISA court exists. You may wish its oversight were stronger or its opinions always public, but again, nothing about how it operates is obviously unconstitutional. Certainly not as self-evidently as some people around here seem to assume.
      - 13y ago
PavlovsCat 13y ago
I don't see a police state That's because you haven't been on the wrong end of it yet. Many others in the same state have, and their experience trumps yours.
a3n 13y ago
The Congress is not investigating the President with any desire to get to the truth, they (the House) are merely keeping this in the public eye to make him and Clinton look bad for Clinton's run for the presidency. We do not have a functioning legislature.
mcv 13y ago
> You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. I think you insult their experience much more by allowing your country to become a police state while denying what's happening. It's true, it could be far, far worse. But that doesn't change the fact that the US is rapidly moving into that direction. The fact that the executive branch and the legislature both support the police state, doesn't make it any less of a police state. Yes, you can call it something else, but a police state by any other name stinks just as much.
chernevik 13y ago
"Can we call it a police state now?" is a question, and one that by its nature should be asked before the answer is "yes".
- dreamfactory 13y ago
  Except when it's a rhetorical question
madaxe 13y ago
You have a distinction between legislative and executive in principle. In practice, however, the tail wags the dog.
rdtsc 13y ago
> You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. Did you live in a police state? I have. What police state calls itself "police state"? Hint: no state calls itself that. There is always a nice fluffy propaganda label slapped on top. "Freedom Loving Republic Of ..." > Our legislation is currently investigating the president for: Oh look, two investigations. Do you want a list of all the new developments that have been happening recently with leaks. I suspect you are familiar with them. > I don't see a police state, and I think being cavalier with terminology I see the beginning of one. Police states don't often turn police states overnight. There is a slow process of erosion going on. > does a grave injustice to lessons of the past and the people who have experienced (and are experiencing) a totalitarian government with truly no checks and balances. For one, it depends what you compare it to. You choose to compare against other states. Ok there are lot of fucked up states. So still doing well there. Now there is another way to compare and to compare a country by its own propaganda, that is what people want or believe that country to be. "We love freedom" (yet we imprison and assassinate people without a trial). "We love privacy" (yet we spy on everyone). "We respect human right" (yet we torture people). Should I continue? Another way to compare is historically, compare US against US say 15 years ago. I would say things got worse. Again if Somalia did this, nobody would care. When US does this, it is very serious. People expect more from US and US has more power. So a 500 lb gorilla not behaving nicely is a lot worse than an angry dog.
- resu_nimda 13y ago
  > Ok there are lot of fucked up states. So still doing well there. > Again if Somalia did this, nobody would care. I think you've just illustrated his point...Those fucked up states? Those are the actual police states (some of them at least). The whole point is that you can't just gloss over them, that's the injustice. I absolutely agree that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but calling it a police state is hyperbole that's not really helpful. It's like calling the US a third-world country because you saw a homeless camp. It belies a lack of perspective as to what an actual third-world country is.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
jellicle 13y ago
> A police state has no distinction between legislation and executive. What does that have to do with anything? There are any number of democracies in the world where that is true; google "responsible government" to learn more. The head of each executive agency in Westminster parliamentary systems is an elected legislator... The essential characteristics of a "police state" involve excessive police supervision of the day-to-day activities of the citizenry, generally with the goal of disrupting and discouraging activism against the government.
carpalarp 13y ago
First, let me start by saying that I understand your position, and I can see how you arrived at it, but that I disagree with your assessment. Using your own argument, you primarily rely on the distinction between legislative and executive branches as the determining factor on if police state = true. While I think it a bad argument in the first place (as it ignores all the nuances of what can constitute a police state, and ignores the various definitions of the word), I will allow for the time being that it is an argument worth having, and will simply assert that we currently have almost no distinction between the legislative branch and executive branches (I would also argue the judicial as well). Here is why. All three branches are compromised from multiple angles. Angle 1. K Street (massive corporations and regulatory capture) Mostly affects congress, but has reaching effects in the other two branches. (elections/nominations in the exec, etc) Angle 2. Dirty info. When the executive starts to gobble up everything on everyone, everyone becomes manipulatable. I think there is good academic standing to be had on the argument that many of our congresspeople are being blackmailed or manipulated in some other way by the executive. Lack of use of tradition checks. We have a very specific checks and balances system, but because of the merging of the three branches that I propose is true, a simple test would be to see how often any of the checks systems have actually been utilized. How often have any of the following occurred? Veto's, impeachment, removal of persons from office, declaration of an act as unconstitutional...etc. In short, the three branches are in the process of merging (if they haven't already for all intents and purposes) All the things that you claim congress is pursuing against the president are part of the media based Hegelian dialectic. They are essentially none issues. For example, on Benghazi, the congressional intel committee probably was more involved or at least more aware of what happened that the POTUS was. But they are investigating? They are the controlled opposition. It is you, not anyone else, who is being cavalier with your terminology, and the implied assertion that because it's not as bad as X example in the past or present is a dangerous road, as it essentially encourages the "it's not so bad, so why are you complaining?" attitude. Also, who fucking cares if someone who has once experienced a "real police state" is "offended" by someone else's assertion of a police state. This is a slimy tactic used by people like the JDF...
mzs 13y ago
Criley, have you lived in a police state? I did. I don't offend easily but my advice to you is that unless you had a dog in this race by living in a police state yourself, please think harder about saying what I will or will not be insulted by.
Shivetya 13y ago
unfortunately we seem to have gone from a system of checks and balances involving the executive branch, legislative, and judicial, to one of judicial, democrat, and republican. and the press just plays dead
zerooneinfinity 13y ago
'My police state is worse then your police state!'
venomsnake 13y ago
It is not so simple - trends are important. For now few things are clearly visible: 1. US spends disproportionately on security and surveillance. 2. There is mission creep and mission search in all security related branches. 3. Vague laws gives prosecutors insane amounts of heavy mallets with which to threaten people - if 95% of trials end with guilty plea and a deal - due process is illusion. 4. US is having very high incarceration per capital ratio. And while 4 has leveled in the last few years I think the other are accelerating. Of course it is not impossible to be reversed. Or even that hard.
graeme 13y ago
These issues aren't black and white. Calling the US a police state is perhaps unhelpful. Emerging police state may be more accurate. The people who use such language note trends. The USA still has liberty, but things are moving in the wrong direction. An article is on the front page on the increasing militarization of police forces. This level of police action surpasses the level of state violence in many police states. I've lived in one police state: Cuba. In many ways, the Cubans were freer of speech than Americans are, and they faced less police intrusion in their lives. And, in other ways, the Cubans were less free and faced more restrictions on speech. Chiefly, when someone decided to step out of line and move from passive complainer to actual threat to the state. My point is this. The USA is still a free country. Citizens enjoy great liberty. However, there are many elements of US society that surpass the excesses of 'police states'. Those trends are increasing, not decreasing. Pointing out that the institutions of American democracy still exist and exercise certain functions does not refute any concerns about increasing state violence. When is the appropriate moment to voice concerns that the USA is moving towards becoming a police state? Once it happens, it will be too late.
Groxx 13y ago
This is rather silly. It's only a police state when there is literally no distinction, and the leader has absolute, unquestioned power, and always gets their way? Has this ever actually existed? It's a continuum. All such terms are. Shouldn't people be upset when the current location swings noticeably in an undesirable direction? What else should it be called? "Can we call it a 45% police state with intermittent oversight favoring the executive branch yet?" And anyway. Why get upset when others get a taste of something bad? Instead of being demeaned by it, why not support, since you know how bad it can get? Whenever stuff like this comes up, it's echoed by "That's insulting, in my day..." as if that somehow makes what's happening now not bad. This isn't a contest for who knows / has lived in the worst governing body.
obstacle1 13y ago
>You insult people who have experienced a police state by calling what we are experiencing a police state. Surely as a logical, intelligent HN poster you understand that this is not a valid counterargument? It is rhetorically quite a persuasive statement, but if you have a strong argument why is an emotional appeal necessary? >A police state has no distinction between legislation and executive. So when secret courts start popping up, what does that mean to you? When repressive arms of the state are free to exercise unrestricted surveillance despite prohibitive legislation, what does that mean to you? The names of things mean very little. How they function is what's important.

spoiledtechie 13y ago

I challenge you to stop asking about it and stand up to do something about it.

nicholassmith 13y ago

The final difference between a true police state and now is that they're allowed to say that they're not allowed to say anything, or that's how it feels.

CodeMage 13y ago
No, they aren't. I agree with @criley wholeheartedly: stop calling the US a police state. There's plenty to criticize without having to resort to blatant falsehoods.

at-fates-hands 13y ago

I don't know about a police state, but I've maintained for a while we're clearly living in a very dystopian society. The problem now is who's going to step into the vacuum and start providing services these people are being persecuted for?? I think this is the real issue. The further you push people down, the more they scatter and go further underground. Sad, sad state of affairs for this country. . .

buro9 13y ago

It is a surveillance state, the police state follows.

neutronicus 13y ago

So, my apartment-mate last year was from Belarus. I got in a bicycle accident on my way home, and somehow managed to get myself home (I don't remember this part) with my face pretty much split open. So, I called 911, and an ambulance and some cops came. The cops asked him some questions. He freaked out. I got this lecture the next day about how he didn't sign up for this, how I needed to keep his name out of my trouble, how I'm bad news, etc. I couldn't help but think that talking to the police meant something very, very different where he's from than where I am. Food for thought.

mjolk 13y ago
While it's a common belief that the police in Belarus are reasonably corrupt, this is usually limited to bribery. Perhaps his visa was expired?
- neutronicus 13y ago
  Grad student, so not likely.
yardie 13y ago
Reminds me of the time I called the police to report an attempted break-in. An hour later they showed up and immediately ran my ID for warrants, I assume. Now I'm on the defensive because even if I wanted to call the police I probably won't.

markkat 13y ago

IMO we are currently in a surveillance state. I wrote my rationale on this on this 2 months ago: http://hubski.com/pub?id=88146 http://hubski.com/pub?id=88146 In short, the difference between a surveillance state and a police state is a matter of nature, but they have capabilities in common. I think a police state will likely follow.