4 ms·

> She laughed and said that no, I did not understand what it was to have secret police following you about and all these other sorts of issues. She's right, an

by laureny 13y ago

> She laughed and said that no, I did not understand what it was to have secret police following you about and all these other sorts of issues. She's right, and like her, I have found it next to impossible to explain this to Americans who think the US is turning into a police state. People making this claim should spend a few hours reading on history and learn about the Gestapo or the Stasi. What's happening in the US occasionally produces unfortunate episodes, such as the one above, but by and large, the US continues to be one of the most free countries in the world in all respects.

venomsnake 13y ago
For me as an outside observer it is the rate of change of the rights and freedoms that is scary and stunning, not the decline in absolute terms. US involuntarily have all pieces of the puzzle for a very high quality totalitarian state. The question is whether someone will be able to assemble them before the immune system of the american society activates in full force and dismantles them. Surveillance capabilities: check Militarized police: check (Balko has some scary data, but haven't checked it thoroughly) Obedient propaganda machine: not quite there, but as the lead up to the Iraq war showed - achievable. Secret laws: check Btw - KGB means "Комитет Государственая Безопасност" which translates into " Committee for State Security" not that far from "Department of Homeland Security" As John Oliver said a few weeks ago about NSA: "We don't say you broke any laws with what you did, we are surprised you didn't have to." Lets just hope that the US society will be able to reverse the trend.
- madaxe 13y ago
  Homeland == vaterland. You did not have this term until the DHS came about.
  - Confusion 13y ago
    If 'vaterland' is intended to be the German translation of Homeland, then Homeland == Heimat. And although usually an innocuous word, in certain contexts some Nazi connontations cling to it. The word 'Homeland' actually creeps me out more than 'Heimat'.
    - madaxe 13y ago
      Vaterland is "Fatherland". It's the same semantic meaning - although I now note that the NSDAP didn't actually ever use it, and it was allied propaganda that set this in perpetuity in the non-german world. Did not know.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
It seems like I'm saying this a lot lately on HN: Better than the worst is not good enough. Most especially, better than the fucking Nazis is not good enough. Tyranny does not happen overnight, and it's helped along by people like you who scoff and say "oh, it's not that bad really" until it's too late. "First they came for the Communists..."
- misiti3780 13y ago
  I completely agree with this ...
- laureny 13y ago
  > Tyranny does not happen overnight, and it's helped along by people like you who scoff and say "oh, it's not that bad really" until it's too late. I'm pointing out a logical mistake in someone's reasoning and now I'm helping tyranny? Don't you think you're taking this a tad too seriously?
  - ceol 13y ago
    > Don't you think you're taking this a tad too seriously? Those words echo through my head every time I click open one of these threads on HN. It's like suddenly the rich white guy is getting oppressed, so we're obviously in a police state! Never mind for the years leading up to this point, the US was doing much worse shit; they just happened to be doing it to minorities. And you can see it in this thread. Everyone concentrating on the fact he was detained, not the reasons, when the whole damn article is about how the US treats people who look like they're from certain countries like default terrorists.
    - JabavuAdams 13y ago
      This. I'm half-black. There was never a glorious past that would have suited me better than this moment, right now. Yes, I do worry about total surveillance.
angersock 13y ago
As venomsnake points out, the concern is not these "unfortunate episodes"--aberrations of justice do happen from time to time, and though we ought strive for perfection it is only human that sometimes we'll goof. No, no, what is troubling is when you look at the system as a whole and how it is evolving, and you start to ask questions: 1. Is there a best effort attempt at justice for all? 2. Is there any ongoing program to limit and reduce .gov security organs? 3. Is there anything to be done peacefully if the .gov security organ decides to attack dissenters? 4. What is the cost of non-peacefully reigning in a malfunctioning .gov security organ? 1 is far from sure, 2 is a no, and 3 is an empathic "oh shit", and 4 is just a shitshow. The concern must not be "how bad are the outliers today"--the concern must be "are we setting up a system which will be infeasible to repair in the next five to ten years".
nl 13y ago
I have very mixed feeling about this. The Gestapo and the Stasi were evil because they were dedicated to preserving the power of a very small section of the population. That hasn't happened in the US (yes, it is true that some sections of the population are victimised more than others but nevertheless the US is still a mostly functional democracy). OTOH, it's not 1981 anymore - they don't need to physically follow people around. Additionally many things that are happening at the moment in the US are reminiscent of the very things that former-communist states were criticised for. Some specific examples: * There was outrage when the Berlin wall fell and people discovered that the Stasi had records on 1/3 or the East German population. Now the NSA probably has record on close to 100% of the US population. * The US used to believe in the idea that everyone had to obey the law and especially the constitution. Now it is accepted doctrine that the President can evade this by using executive orders. That appears to mean that the president has complete, unchecked power and is almost completely above the rule of law. * Eastern block countries were criticised for the fact that police could stop people and demand to see their papers.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
"the US continues to be one of the most free countries in the world in all respects." If this is true, then why does it jail more people per capita than any other country by a long, long way? Your population can't be simultaneously one of the most free and be the most incarcerated, as that makes no sense.
- nske 13y ago
  It depends, some other possible explanations could be that the US justice system is that much more effective or that US inhabitants are that much more disobedient to the same laws than those of other countries. Not saying that's the case, just wouldn't be so quick to dismiss anything. US can indeed be said that are among the most free countries, but that doesn't really say anything without clarifying who we are comparing them with! My impression is that US is one of the least free countries by a relatively small margin when we compare them to most European countries and one of the most free ones, by a relatively large margin, if we consider the state of most African and Asian ones -but I think that if someone is even bothering to seriously make that last comparison, that alone is an indication that something is wrong in the US.
  - cvshepherd 13y ago
    i would argue that a high incarceration rate does in no way point to an effective justice system.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    "could be that the US justice system is that much more effective" If the effectiveness of a justice system is seen in terms of rate of incarceration, then the society that takes that view does not sound particularly as though it believes in freedom as a fundamental value, but rather prefers values like retribution and security through deferment to authority. "US inhabitants are that much more disobedient to the same laws than those of other countries" This doesn't hold any water either. For one thing disobedience is an aspect of freedom itself, so that a free society would presumably have a reasonable tolerance to simple disobedience and wouldn't use disobedience in and of itself to justify incarceration and would need to establish harm and public interest. Also, the rate of incarceration in the US is so massively higher than other countries that it becomes patently ridiculous to try and justify it by claiming people in the US are that much less moral than other people and so need locking up more. I know you don't subscribe to these stances and say that they are just other possible explanations, however I do not think they qualify as possible explanations, as they have some incompatibilities with the general concept of freedom, and the actual situation in the US.
betterunix 13y ago
"the US continues to be one of the most free countries in the world in all respects" I suppose if you ignore the fact that we have an order of magnitude more prisoners than any other country that is true. You cannot claim we are one of the most free countries in all respects when we have so many people in jail (which is basically the polar opposite of freedom). "People making this claim should spend a few hours reading on history and learn about the Gestapo or the Stasi." So if we have not yet descended to the level of the Nazis, we could not be a police state? This kind of "race to the bottom" attitude is dangerously misguided. We already have soldiers enforcing the law. We already have combination law-enforcement/intelligence agencies. We know that the police are lying to judges and prosecutors about how they gathered their evidence. Peaceful political protesters have discovered undercover police spies sent to their groups. Even if we accepted your extreme definition of a police state, we are in a lot of trouble as things stand right now.

by laureny 13y ago

venomsnake 13y ago

For me as an outside observer it is the rate of change of the rights and freedoms that is scary and stunning, not the decline in absolute terms. US involuntarily have all pieces of the puzzle for a very high quality totalitarian state. The question is whether someone will be able to assemble them before the immune system of the american society activates in full force and dismantles them. Surveillance capabilities: check Militarized police: check (Balko has some scary data, but haven't checked it thoroughly) Obedient propaganda machine: not quite there, but as the lead up to the Iraq war showed - achievable. Secret laws: check Btw - KGB means "Комитет Государственая Безопасност" which translates into " Committee for State Security" not that far from "Department of Homeland Security" As John Oliver said a few weeks ago about NSA: "We don't say you broke any laws with what you did, we are surprised you didn't have to." Lets just hope that the US society will be able to reverse the trend.

madaxe 13y ago
Homeland == vaterland. You did not have this term until the DHS came about.
- Confusion 13y ago
  If 'vaterland' is intended to be the German translation of Homeland, then Homeland == Heimat. And although usually an innocuous word, in certain contexts some Nazi connontations cling to it. The word 'Homeland' actually creeps me out more than 'Heimat'.
  - madaxe 13y ago
    Vaterland is "Fatherland". It's the same semantic meaning - although I now note that the NSDAP didn't actually ever use it, and it was allied propaganda that set this in perpetuity in the non-german world. Did not know.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

It seems like I'm saying this a lot lately on HN: Better than the worst is not good enough. Most especially, better than the fucking Nazis is not good enough. Tyranny does not happen overnight, and it's helped along by people like you who scoff and say "oh, it's not that bad really" until it's too late. "First they came for the Communists..."

misiti3780 13y ago
I completely agree with this ...
laureny 13y ago
> Tyranny does not happen overnight, and it's helped along by people like you who scoff and say "oh, it's not that bad really" until it's too late. I'm pointing out a logical mistake in someone's reasoning and now I'm helping tyranny? Don't you think you're taking this a tad too seriously?
- ceol 13y ago
  > Don't you think you're taking this a tad too seriously? Those words echo through my head every time I click open one of these threads on HN. It's like suddenly the rich white guy is getting oppressed, so we're obviously in a police state! Never mind for the years leading up to this point, the US was doing much worse shit; they just happened to be doing it to minorities. And you can see it in this thread. Everyone concentrating on the fact he was detained, not the reasons, when the whole damn article is about how the US treats people who look like they're from certain countries like default terrorists.
  - JabavuAdams 13y ago
    This. I'm half-black. There was never a glorious past that would have suited me better than this moment, right now. Yes, I do worry about total surveillance.

angersock 13y ago

As venomsnake points out, the concern is not these "unfortunate episodes"--aberrations of justice do happen from time to time, and though we ought strive for perfection it is only human that sometimes we'll goof. No, no, what is troubling is when you look at the system as a whole and how it is evolving, and you start to ask questions: 1. Is there a best effort attempt at justice for all? 2. Is there any ongoing program to limit and reduce .gov security organs? 3. Is there anything to be done peacefully if the .gov security organ decides to attack dissenters? 4. What is the cost of non-peacefully reigning in a malfunctioning .gov security organ? 1 is far from sure, 2 is a no, and 3 is an empathic "oh shit", and 4 is just a shitshow. The concern must not be "how bad are the outliers today"--the concern must be "are we setting up a system which will be infeasible to repair in the next five to ten years".

nl 13y ago

I have very mixed feeling about this. The Gestapo and the Stasi were evil because they were dedicated to preserving the power of a very small section of the population. That hasn't happened in the US (yes, it is true that some sections of the population are victimised more than others but nevertheless the US is still a mostly functional democracy). OTOH, it's not 1981 anymore - they don't need to physically follow people around. Additionally many things that are happening at the moment in the US are reminiscent of the very things that former-communist states were criticised for. Some specific examples: * There was outrage when the Berlin wall fell and people discovered that the Stasi had records on 1/3 or the East German population. Now the NSA probably has record on close to 100% of the US population. * The US used to believe in the idea that everyone had to obey the law and especially the constitution. Now it is accepted doctrine that the President can evade this by using executive orders. That appears to mean that the president has complete, unchecked power and is almost completely above the rule of law. * Eastern block countries were criticised for the fact that police could stop people and demand to see their papers.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

"the US continues to be one of the most free countries in the world in all respects." If this is true, then why does it jail more people per capita than any other country by a long, long way? Your population can't be simultaneously one of the most free and be the most incarcerated, as that makes no sense.

nske 13y ago
It depends, some other possible explanations could be that the US justice system is that much more effective or that US inhabitants are that much more disobedient to the same laws than those of other countries. Not saying that's the case, just wouldn't be so quick to dismiss anything. US can indeed be said that are among the most free countries, but that doesn't really say anything without clarifying who we are comparing them with! My impression is that US is one of the least free countries by a relatively small margin when we compare them to most European countries and one of the most free ones, by a relatively large margin, if we consider the state of most African and Asian ones -but I think that if someone is even bothering to seriously make that last comparison, that alone is an indication that something is wrong in the US.
- cvshepherd 13y ago
  i would argue that a high incarceration rate does in no way point to an effective justice system.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  "could be that the US justice system is that much more effective" If the effectiveness of a justice system is seen in terms of rate of incarceration, then the society that takes that view does not sound particularly as though it believes in freedom as a fundamental value, but rather prefers values like retribution and security through deferment to authority. "US inhabitants are that much more disobedient to the same laws than those of other countries" This doesn't hold any water either. For one thing disobedience is an aspect of freedom itself, so that a free society would presumably have a reasonable tolerance to simple disobedience and wouldn't use disobedience in and of itself to justify incarceration and would need to establish harm and public interest. Also, the rate of incarceration in the US is so massively higher than other countries that it becomes patently ridiculous to try and justify it by claiming people in the US are that much less moral than other people and so need locking up more. I know you don't subscribe to these stances and say that they are just other possible explanations, however I do not think they qualify as possible explanations, as they have some incompatibilities with the general concept of freedom, and the actual situation in the US.

betterunix 13y ago

"the US continues to be one of the most free countries in the world in all respects" I suppose if you ignore the fact that we have an order of magnitude more prisoners than any other country that is true. You cannot claim we are one of the most free countries in all respects when we have so many people in jail (which is basically the polar opposite of freedom). "People making this claim should spend a few hours reading on history and learn about the Gestapo or the Stasi." So if we have not yet descended to the level of the Nazis, we could not be a police state? This kind of "race to the bottom" attitude is dangerously misguided. We already have soldiers enforcing the law. We already have combination law-enforcement/intelligence agencies. We know that the police are lying to judges and prosecutors about how they gathered their evidence. Peaceful political protesters have discovered undercover police spies sent to their groups. Even if we accepted your extreme definition of a police state, we are in a lot of trouble as things stand right now.