NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching CNN a few days ago, the had a segment called "Strategic Sessions" or somthing to that effect. There was a political strategist from the Democrats and one from the Republicans. When asked about protecting mass transit from a London like attack the Republican strategist stated that her party would like airport like security for all mass transit. At first this didn't sound like a terrible goal, then I began to think about it. That would mean armed gaurds on the streets looking through your possesions and checking your drivers liecense (which has recently become a national ID card). Does that seem dangerously close to a police state to anyone else, or am I overthinking this?

p.s. please disregard the spelling in the title.

The United States of Fortress America

Yep, sounds like the US is slowly shifting from freedom to a virtual prison

:rolleyes:

Of course not. And I heard afterwards on a rare recording of the microphone after the cameras were off, that the Republican strategist demanded that all people march in an orderly fashion with their right arms extended at a 60 degree angle from the ground. She claimed that that would ensure smooth strip searches and make it easier for the guards to make sure no one was carrying explosives of any type.

that is rediculous! everound knows anything less the 75 degrees will only make the strip search harder

It would take two hours to get into the NYC subway and suicide bombers would be able to get those in the line up.

that is rediculous! everound knows anything less the 75 degrees will only make the strip search harder
but then the people's arms will be in their way and they won't be able to see where they're walk...hey, that's a great idea! Nothing like blind followers! :D

but then the people's arms will be in their way and they won't be able to see where they're walk...hey, that's a great idea! Nothing like blind followers! :D
the plot thickens

I was watching CNN a few days ago, the had a segment called "Strategic Sessions" or somthing to that effect. There was a political strategist from the Democrats and one from the Republicans. When asked about protecting mass transit from a London like attack the Republican strategist stated that her party would like airport like security for all mass transit. At first this didn't sound like a terrible goal, then I began to think about it. That would mean armed gaurds on the streets looking through your possesions and checking your drivers liecense (which has recently become a national ID card). Does that seem dangerously close to a police state to anyone else, or am I overthinking this?

No, that is a police state. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to your nicely furnished semi-detached JAIL.

And sit there and think to yourself inbetween commercials for useless crap, "does this all seem dangerously close to a police state?", then eat some more cheese puffs and start channel-surfing.

Or any one of a number of other useful methods for tuning out. Hey, some people tune out by coming here... and I think a few come here to tune others out, as well.

But all snidey toldja-sos aside, I've been trying like Hell to figuratively bang the pots and pans around here to bring it to peoples' attention that you're becoming a police state down there.

It didn't seem to work, it was like no-one takes the threat of a police state seriously, or thinks it's something out of a foreign film, or something - cause you sure are all being seemingly pretty blase about having your freedoms palpably eroded all around you in real-time.

So I tried using different nomenclature - I tried calling it a 'Security State', i.e. a state wherein state security supersedes the rights of the individual, especially the rights of the dissident. That seemed to resonate somewhat.

But it's all for naught, I'm sure, by my even contributing to this thread - there's a whole raft of conservatives who'll either discount utterly the notion (along with the usual histrionic bleating for Republican-friendly 'blog' links), or who'll choose to utterly discount the thread... with points scored for tearing strips off anyone who even remotely appears anti-American, i.e. anti-Bushite Thuggery.

The USA is turning into a dictatorship of sorts, and so is the rest of Europe. Instead of creating security by helping the third world citizens obtain a healthy living standard in their own countries, the west has caught itself in a series of "punitive" wars against nations that had nothing to do with terorism (except supposed harbouring of Al-Quaeda (a thing which the CIA does, prob), and being muslim states), and bringing "democracy" by force to these nations, while being buddies with bigger Saddam-o-ramas like China (e.g.). All this puts food on the table for Al Quaeda an d their buddies, and earns them a whole load of recruits.
But when Halliburtom, Exxon, Lockheed-Martin, the Carlisle Group amd Fox have elected you president, you cannot avoid to fight the wars they want, so in order to create a feeling of internal security, you will have to turn to creating a victorian police state.....

The United States of Fortress America

Yep, sounds like the US is slowly shifting from freedom to a virtual prison

:rolleyes:

Not by choice. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is not a government conspiracy to rob you of freedom - it's a defensive measure we've been forced into. Thanks to Islamic terrorists. Place the blame where it belongs.

Not by choice. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is not a government conspiracy to rob you of freedom - it's a defensive measure we've been forced into. Thanks to Islamic terrorists. Place the blame where it belongs.
lol! hahaha thank you! I needed that one! :D Yeah, place the blame where it belongs...the PNAC.

Not by choice. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is not a government conspiracy to rob you of freedom - it's a defensive measure we've been forced into. Thanks to Islamic terrorists. Place the blame where it belongs.

The blame is on the government, because instead of narrowing down the things that make muslim people, and generally people from poor countries ,angry.
E.g. It could stop Ariel Sharon's terrorist raids in the Palestinian State. The American politicians can not talk about terorism and rogue states, simply because they are turning the states into a terrorist rogue state

The USA is turning into a dictatorship of sorts, and so is the rest of Europe. Instead of creating security by helping the third world citizens obtain a healthy living standard in their own countries, the west has caught itself in a series of "punitive" wars against nations that had nothing to do with terorism (except supposed harbouring of Al-Quaeda (a thing which the CIA does, prob), and being muslim states) no probobly, the cia, admitadly, trained bin ladin to fight the soviets. This illustrates one of thi biggest problems with American forign policy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But perhaps I'm being unfiar, I mean who could have forseen that if we trained and armed a radical Muslim who was out spoken in his distaste for the west that he would use those skills against us?

Not by choice. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is not a government conspiracy to rob you of freedom - it's a defensive measure we've been forced into. Thanks to Islamic terrorists. Place the blame where it belongs.
No-one ever said life comes with a guarantee of uniterrupted bliss. A piano could come crashing down over any of our heads. There was a choice made to coccoon America, but each and every one of us either chooses to live life with all the fortunes and vagaries attendant to that life, or chooses to be a shut-in.

The Bush admin made the decision to make you a nation of shut-ins. Not Islamic terrorists. Your leaders chose to elevate the security of the cellblock over the sanctity of your freedom.

Taste your victory over oppressive ideologies who supposedly seek to strip you of everything you hold dear; it is ashen. And yet, you are yet stripped - all you hold dear has been taken from you, not by some vanquished foe, but from those same people who would claim to fight against oppressive ideologies in your name, that the freedoms they've taken from you might be somehow preserved.

How do you preserve a freedom you no longer possess?

Not by choice. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is not a government conspiracy to rob you of freedom - it's a defensive measure we've been forced into. Thanks to Islamic terrorists. Place the blame where it belongs.
The blame is with the government who ignored clerics and stationed troops on ladn considered to be holy during the first gulf war. Or perhaps the blame lays with the government who bombed mosques during the second gulf war. But its ok they were terrorist mosques right?

no probobly, the cia, admitadly, trained bin ladin to fight the soviets. This illustrates one of thi biggest problems with American forign policy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But perhaps I'm being unfiar, I mean who could have forseen that if we trained and armed a radical Muslim who was out spoken in his distaste for the west that he would use those skills against us?

Then probably it all comes down to who your buddies are. I mean, the states, at the time, helped the Mudjahedeen, even though they where a bunch of loco ultra religious-right type cowboys, and then, some state governors, (note in Bush) tried to do business with the Taliban, despite the fact that they where an oppressive reigime

no probobly, the cia, admitadly, trained bin ladin to fight the soviets. This illustrates one of thi biggest problems with American forign policy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But perhaps I'm being unfiar, I mean who could have forseen that if we trained and armed a radical Muslim who was out spoken in his distaste for the west that he would use those skills against us?

Then probably it all comes down to who your buddies are. I mean, the states, at the time, helped the Mudjahedeen, even though they where a bunch of loco ultra religious-right type cowboys, and then, some state governors, (note in Bush) tried to do business with the Taliban, despite the fact that they where an oppressive reigime

lol! hahaha thank you! I needed that one! :D Yeah, place the blame where it belongs...the PNAC.

I don't know whether extreme security on public transportation is necessary or not. Do you disagree that some security is necessary? Do you think that the need for airport/transport security is being conducted in most western nations, and is not confined to the US? Last I looked, Al-Queada has bombed civilians in sixteen countries. And has no compunctions about attacking others.

I don't know whether extreme security on public transportation is necessary or not. Do you disagree that some security is necessary? Do you think that the need for airport/transport security is being conducted in most western nations, and is not confined to the US? Last I looked, Al-Queada has bombed civilians in sixteen countries. And has no compunctions about attacking others.
I don't think anyone is saying that nothing needs to be done to try and make the world around us, most notably in places where there are larger crowds, safer. However I think that prevention is the way to go even though in the short run it will cost of money I think the lives saved and the rights saved from a police state situation would be well worth it. Cracking down on the rights of all people because of terrorism just contributes to an atmosphere of fear and does little to prevent or deter further attacks. It seems to me to be an excercise in futility.

Not by choice. I don't like it any more than you do, but this is not a government conspiracy to rob you of freedom - it's a defensive measure we've been forced into. Thanks to Islamic terrorists. Place the blame where it belongs.

You need to remember this:
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I don't know whether extreme security on public transportation is necessary or not. Do you disagree that some security is necessary? Do you think that the need for airport/transport security is being conducted in most western nations, and is not confined to the US? Last I looked, Al-Queada has bombed civilians in sixteen countries. And has no compunctions about attacking others.
Well now that we're in a giant world wide shithole, some of the measures are necessary, but like you said, the blame must be placed in the right hands--the warmongering neocons of the PNAC who were too anxious to go to war than to think about the smart way to wage the "War on Terror."

and the us has bombed civilians in at least four countries in the last ten years.
Iraq (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Serbia and Montenegro, Lybia, and Sudan,
not counting Ariel Sharon taking his military on walkies all over the palaistinians.

No-one ever said life comes with a guarantee of uniterrupted bliss. A piano could come crashing down over any of our heads. There was a choice made to coccoon America, but each and every one of us either chooses to live life with all the fortunes and vagaries attendant to that life, or chooses to be a shut-in.

The Bush admin made the decision to make you a nation of shut-ins. Not Islamic terrorists. Your leaders chose to elevate the security of the cellblock over the sanctity of your freedom.

Taste your victory over oppressive ideologies who supposedly seek to strip you of everything you hold dear; it is ashen. And yet, you are yet stripped - all you hold dear has been taken from you, not by some vanquished foe, but from those same people who would claim to fight against oppressive ideologies in your name, that the freedoms they've taken from you might be somehow preserved.

How do you preserve a freedom you no longer possess?

I haven't lost any freedom. I am, however, subjected to inconvenience if I'm at an airport. How are you affected in Canada?

I don't think anyone is saying that nothing needs to be done to try and make the world around us, most notably in places where there are larger crowds, safer. However I think that prevention is the way to go even though in the short run it will cost of money I think the lives saved and the rights saved from a police state situation would be well worth it. Cracking down on the rights of all people because of terrorism just contributes to an atmosphere of fear and does little to prevent or deter further attacks. It seems to me to be an excercise in futility.

One thing to do is to ask the military-industrial complex not to mess around with politics, but who has the cojones to do that m8?

Well now that we're in a giant world wide shithole, some of the measures are necessary, but like you said, the blame must be placed in the right hands--the warmongering neocons of the PNAC who were too anxious to go to war than to think about the smart way to wage the "War on Terror."

There is no smart way to wage war, let alone a war against a noun.

Well now that we're in a giant world wide shithole, some of the measures are necessary, but like you said, the blame must be placed in the right hands--the warmongering neocons of the PNAC who were too anxious to go to war than to think about the smart way to wage the "War on Terror."

As far as I know, we were not at war with anyone when we were attacked on 9/11. Three thousand people died.

I haven't lost any freedom. I am, however, subjected to inconvenience if I'm at an airport. How are you affected in Canada?
I'm not speaking of Canada, I am speaking to my fellow North Americans, the USians.

I haven't lost any freedom. I am, however, subjected to inconvenience if I'm at an airport. How are you affected in Canada?
Yes you have. That "inconvinience" should be invasion of privacy, but in the Orwellian post 911 era, it's "patriotic services," or some other similar Newspeak expression. Have these measures made you safer in any quantifiable way?

I haven't lost any freedom. I am, however, subjected to inconvenience if I'm at an airport. How are you affected in Canada?

Well I dont know if you consider a cctv network following your every step security, but I consider it an intrusion to my private life, a violation of my civil rights and a violation of my freedom m8

As far as I know, we were not at war with anyone when we were attacked on 9/11. Three thousand people died.
and over 100,000 people died in the resulting wars.

and the us has bombed civilians in at least four countries in the last ten years.
Iraq (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Serbia and Montenegro, Lybia, and Sudan,
not counting Ariel Sharon taking his military on walkies all over the palaistinians.

Any time there is war there will be civilian deaths, it's unavoidable. The US does not deliberately target civilians. Islamic terrorists do target civilians, it's their primary objective. There's a big difference.

Any time there is war there will be civilian deaths, it's unavoidable. The US does not deliberately target civilians. Islamic terrorists do target civilians, it's their primary objective. There's a big difference.
They don't do it anymore (much), but it was the main strategy during WWII of both sides.

you should be checked, because what the fuck are you riding mass transit for when you have a drivers licence.

A police state is when they invaid your private life, they havent started that yet as much. So far your just being punished if you are doing public things.

A country is a noun. The problem is that Bush and his Reich-wing cronies are attempting to instill complacence in the masses about losing their rights by waging a fictional war on an abstract idea.

For all the opression the Bushites lay down on you, you are not gaining any security.

Terrorism is a symptom, not the disease.

Bombing schools and shooting injured reporters in the head sounds an awful lot like intentionally killing civilians to me.

Well I dont know if you consider a cctv network following your every step security, but I consider it an intrusion to my private life, a violation of my civil rights and a violation of my freedom m8

How? you are out in public anyways. You dont have a private life outside in public.

you should be checked, because what the fuck are you riding mass transit for when you have a drivers licence.

A police state is when they invaid your private life, they havent started that yet as much. So far your just being punished if you are doing public things.
Many people have drivers licences that cannot aford cars, it is a unversally accepted form of identification. Further more if armed gaurds on the streets checking a national ID card does not constitute a police state then I dont' know what does.

you should be checked, because what the fuck are you riding mass transit for when you have a drivers licence.
The Hell you talking about - ?
A police state is when they invaid your private life, they havent started that yet as much. So far your just being punished if you are doing public things.
So you're okay until someone comes to search your house?

There is no smart way to wage war, let alone a war against a noun.
That is true, war is stupid, but when you remember the miraculous allied victories during WWII such as the Battle of Midway, and then you think of Rumsfeld's retarded "shock and awe" strategy and sending in 150,000 troops thinking that will solve everything, there is definately a difference.

Many people have drivers licences that cannot aford cars, it is a unversally accepted form of identification. Further more if armed gaurds on the streets checking a national ID card does not constitute a police state then I dont' know what does.

Some of us don't have driver's licenses, period. I use my passport for photo ID when necessary. Shouldn't that be good enough for any circumstance?

<snip>

Cracking down on the rights of all people because of terrorism just contributes to an atmosphere of fear and does little to prevent or deter further attacks. It seems to me to be an excercise in futility.

I'm not sure I understand - what are you referring to? Personally, I'm concerned that rights and freedoms could be infringed upon. Yet it's clear that some changes must be made until we defeat the enemy - we will defeat him, but it will take many years. The question is what we will sacrifice in terms of inconvenience for defense against bombers.

Up to now, I haven't seen the "cracking down on the rights of all peoples". I'm afraid that it can happen though, specifically by targeting the Moslem community because of the perception that they are to a degree responsible for aiding/abetting terrorists.

A country is a noun. The problem is that Bush and his Reich-wing cronies are attempting to instill complacence in the masses about losing their rights by waging a fictional war on an abstract idea.

For all the opression the Bushites lay down on you, you are not gaining any security.

Terrorism is a symptom, not the disease.

Bombing schools and shooting injured reporters in the head sounds an awful lot like intentionally killing civilians to me.

Pst..your bias is showing, no more posts from you please.

Everybody no more posts if you slap stupid catchy labels for people or groups of people. It invalidates everything you say afterwards or before. Hellooooooooo brain i should use you more often instead of using preprogramed responces!

I haven't lost any freedom. I am, however, subjected to inconvenience if I'm at an airport. How are you affected in Canada?
When other people lose their freedoms around you you are also losing yours. Friday, 11 March, 2005, 14:29 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Hundreds arrested, few convicted
Belmarsh Prison
There have been complaints about detentions without charges
Since the 9/11 attacks hundreds of people have been arrested in the UK under anti-terror laws, but fewer than 20 have been convicted.

Between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2004, were 701 arrests in the UK under the Terrorism Act.

But only 119 of these had faced charges under this legislation, with 45 of them also being charged for other offences.

A further 135 people were charged under

other legislation - including terrorist offences covered in other criminal law, such as the use of explosives.

Only 17 have been convicted of offences under the Act.




comment | posted September 16, 2004 (October 4, 2004 issue)
Taking Liberties: Ashcroft: 0 for 5,000

David Cole

On September 2 a federal judge in Detroit threw out the only jury conviction the Justice Department has obtained on a terrorism charge since 9/11. In October 2001, shortly after the men were initially arrested, Attorney General John Ashcroft heralded the case in a national press conference as evidence of the success of his anti-terror campaign. The indictment alleged that the defendants were associated with Al Qaeda and planning terrorist attacks. But Ashcroft held no news conference in September when the case was dismissed, nor did he offer any apologies to the defendants who had spent nearly three years in jail. That wouldn't be good for his boss's campaign, which rests on the "war on terrorism." Here, as in Iraq, Bush's war is not going as well as he pretends.

The Detroit case was extremely weak from the outset. The government could never specify exactly what terrorist activity was allegedly being planned and never offered any evidence linking the defendants to Al Qaeda. Its case consisted almost entirely of a pair of sketches and a videotape, described by an FBI agent as "casing materials" for a terrorist plot, and the testimony of a witness of highly dubious reliability seeking a generous plea deal. It now turns out that the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense evidence that other government experts did not consider the sketches and videotape to be terrorist casing materials at all and that the government's key witness had admitted to lying.

Until that reversal, the Detroit case had marked the only terrorist conviction obtained from the Justice Department's detention of more than 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps since 9/11. So Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000. When the Attorney General was locking these men up in the immediate wake of the attacks, he held almost daily press conferences to announce how many "suspected terrorists" had been detained. No press conference has been forthcoming to announce that exactly none of them have turned out to be actual terrorists.

5000 arested and 0 convicted. when this is happening around you and you don't see a problem than you are blind.

This reminds me of something a pastor once wrote:
First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

{sarcasm}ya its not that bad yet they only came for the muslims{/sarcasm}

Any time there is war there will be civilian deaths, it's unavoidable. The US does not deliberately target civilians. Islamic terrorists do target civilians, it's their primary objective. There's a big difference.

Yeah but they are colonial wars mate. They where offensives against countries that did not threaten anyone. And Sudan, Lybia and the first attack in Afghanistan did not follow a decleration of war, and neither was it an attack on military insvot to gitalations.
In fact they hit a medicine factory (oh yeah aspirines are weapons of mass destruction -against headache), a refugee camp (liberating the world of dangerous starving refugees), and an urban tourist area (Yeah terrorise tourists not to give money to this rogue-left wing-indian lover-loony Khandafi)
Oh, and Israel targets civilians. Why do you think they bomb suspected terorists, with missiles fired from apache helicopters, during rush hour?

That is true, war is stupid, but when you remember the miraculous allied victories during WWII such as the Battle of Midway, and then you think of Rumsfeld's retarded "shock and awe" strategy and sending in 150,000 troops thinking that will solve everything, there is definately a difference.
What, tactics and strategy versus reams and reams of men and vehicles posing for imbedded journalists? Heh. 'Shock and Awe' looked like a parody of excerpted clips from 'Triumph of the Will'.

So, you planning on staying or going?

I'm not sure I understand - what are you referring to? Personally, I'm concerned that rights and freedoms could be infringed upon. Yet it's clear that some changes must be made until we defeat the enemy - we will defeat him, but it will take many years. The question is what we will sacrifice in terms of inconvenience for defense against bombers.

Up to now, I haven't seen the "cracking down on the rights of all peoples". I'm afraid that it can happen though, specifically by targeting the Moslem community because of the perception that they are to a degree responsible for aiding/abetting terrorists.
I think you may have missed my point. I am saying that instead of focusing on killing the terrorist, and effectivly making them into martyrs, we should look at the causes, try to figure out why they are bombing us (please no "they hate freedom"s) and fix that. I think that being proactive would yeild more results without the privacy infringments that we are encountering.

Pst..your bias is showing, no more posts from you please.

Everybody no more posts if you slap stupid catchy labels for people or groups of people. It invalidates everything you say afterwards or before. Hellooooooooo brain i should use you more often instead of using preprogramed responces!

Hello, or 'Helloooooooo', Gulf Republic's brain: could you answer this question from Dobbsworld?

So you're okay until someone comes to search your house?

Thank you, Gulf Republic's brain. Give Gulf Republic my regards, btw.

I was watching CNN a few days ago, the had a segment called "Strategic Sessions" or somthing to that effect. There was a political strategist from the Democrats and one from the Republicans. When asked about protecting mass transit from a London like attack the Republican strategist stated that her party would like airport like security for all mass transit. At first this didn't sound like a terrible goal, then I began to think about it. That would mean armed gaurds on the streets looking through your possesions and checking your drivers liecense (which has recently become a national ID card). Does that seem dangerously close to a police state to anyone else, or am I overthinking this?

p.s. please disregard the spelling in the title.

I dont know if America is drifting towards a police state (although it sounds like it) but Britain definitely is.

1. Our freedom of speech has been quashed as we can't say bomb on planes, praise terrorists or criticise other religions/races
2. Our freedom of expression has been stripped away from us as we can no longer have peaceful protests outside Parliament or laboratories.
3. Armed police are swarming London and perform random bag checks.
4. We will be forced to carry ID cards like in the Soviet Union.
5. We can be arrested without trial and soon we can be held for up to 3 months.
6. Police are told to shoot to kill.
7. Basic activities such as smoking and fox hunting are being banned.

I'm thinking the fox-hunting doesn't have much to do with terror.

Here's a thought: despite the bad press and negative attitudes, America probably has the greatest chance of maintaining freedom, during the next 10 years or so, compared to European countries.

Think about it. We have a very strong aversion to violations of the Constitution - there's a hell of a fight at the hint of violating individual rights.

Europe is at a disadvantage. A much greater Moslem population, geographically closer to the mideast, and I think more flexibility to decrease individual freedoms. Several political parties are waiting in the wings to capitalize on racial/religious unrest, i.e. BNP in Britain, and a similar party in The Netherlands. They have significant popular support.

Have you read about the measures being considered in some countries? Netherlands are considering filming sermons in mosques and televising them, they no longer will permit Moslem brides to be brought back from the old country without Dutch citizenship. French can detain suspects and families for 5 days with no charges. Germany is considering similar things.

I think we'll see a real crackdown in Europe, far less likely in the US.

I dont know if America is drifting towards a police state (although it sounds like it) but Britain definitely is.

1. Our freedom of speech has been quashed as we can't say bomb on planes, praise terrorists or criticise other religions/races
2. Our freedom of expression has been stripped away from us as we can no longer have peaceful protests outside Parliament or laboratories.
3. Armed police are swarming London and perform random bag checks.
4. We will be forced to carry ID cards like in the Soviet Union.
5. We can be arrested without trial and soon we can be held for up to 3 months.
6. Police are told to shoot to kill.
7. Basic activities such as smoking and fox hunting are being banned.

1. U.S. has it.
2. U.S. has it.
3. U.S. has it.(not london though)
4. U.S. has it.
5. U.S. has it.(but can be held indefinatly)
6. U.S. has it.
7. U.S. has it.

on a side note though I do support the fox hunting ban

What, tactics and strategy versus reams and reams of men and vehicles posing for imbedded journalists? Heh. 'Shock and Awe' looked like a parody of excerpted clips from 'Triumph of the Will'.

So, you planning on staying or going?
haha, yeah! After reading several Tom Clancy novels, one gets the impression that the US can carry out covert operatoins necessary for fighting the "war on terror" smartly.

Me? I'm planning on staing here. Though I do have to work Saturday. :D Actually what do you mean? Am I for U.S. troops staying in Iraq? Yes--It'd be irresponsible to leave. Do I want to move out of the US? No, I can't leave more conservatives behind!

Think about it. We have a very strong aversion to violations of the Constitution - there's a hell of a fight at the hint of violating individual rights.

Ever here of a piece of legislation known as "The Patriot Act"?
The patriot act is just a violation of the constitution.
It seems to me Americans couldn't give a sh*t about their own rights unless some one is talking about gun control...
except me that is...

K, just wondering. If I was an American right now, I'd be emptying out my bank accounts and boarding a flight to just about anywhere, before my passport is no longer valid. After that, well...

K, just wondering. If I was an American right now, I'd be emptying out my bank accounts and boarding a flight to just about anywhere, before my passport is no longer valid. After that, well...
I was actually thinking about converting like half of my accounts to Euros or Pounds. What currency do you suggest? Canadian dollar?

I was actually thinking about converting like half of my accounts to Euros or Pounds. What currency do you suggest? Canadian dollar?
Diamonds.

I think you may have missed my point. I am saying that instead of focusing on killing the terrorist, and effectivly making them into martyrs, we should look at the causes, try to figure out why they are bombing us (please no "they hate freedom"s) and fix that. I think that being proactive would yeild more results without the privacy infringments that we are encountering.

Have you given much thought to what the terrorists want, and what the causes are? If you could negotiate with them, what kind of deal would you consider making with them? You are aware that they consider themselves the enemy of many Islamic nations as well?

I agree with you about being proactive, but I'm of the view that there is little we can do short of capitulation. I have been compiling research material, but it's too late an hour for me to give you supporting data. Maybe tomorrow.

Diamonds.
lol alright...it'll aid the terrorists too, so it's a win-win! [/sarcasm]

Ever here of a piece of legislation known as "The Patriot Act"?
The patriot act is just a violation of the constitution.
It seems to me Americans couldn't give a sh*t about their own rights unless some one is talking about gun control...
except me that is...

And there was a hell of a fight over the Patriot Act. In my view you are generalizing too much. Have you read the full text? Most of the issues are extremely specific - it does not, for instance, simply dismantle the Fourth Amendment.

I'm not defending the Act, I have misgivings. I would have supported it if it were subject to annual review, but this is what the majority wanted. If it doesn't work for the majority then it will be changed. It doesn't need to be permanent.

Of course the US is becoming a Police state. I'm predicting that eventually there will be another Civil war between conservatives and Liberials if this keeps up. I mean during that whole Terri thing the police down there were taking (Not real seriously but it was implied) about if they had enough firepower to stop the National Guard from taking her under Bush's orders. They almost faced off with the State police before Governor Bush canceled it. Could you imagine what would be starting if State police opened fire on the local police to save a comatose woman?? Complete Chaos that's what!

Of course the US is becoming a Police state. I'm predicting that eventually there will be another Civil war between conservatives and Liberials if this keeps up. I mean during that whole Terri thing the police down there were taking (Not real seriously but it was implied) about if they had enough firepower to stop the National Guard from taking her under Bush's orders. They almost faced off with the State police before Governor Bush canceled it. Could you imagine what would be starting if State police opened fire on the local police to save a comatose woman?? Complete Chaos that's what!

I find that hard to believe. Got links?

Yep Let me find them.

Originally Posted by Callery

Cracking down on the rights of all people because of terrorism just contributes to an atmosphere of fear and does little to prevent or deter further attacks. It seems to me to be an excercise in futility.


He's absolutely righ, I know from experience, I live right next to an Air Force Base and after 9/11 they made all this show of new security measures but drive dpwn the road and... whats this? A wide open field leading to the main airstrip guarded by a 2 ft high bar? large sections of land where there is no fencing?
Seems to me that all this "security" deters nothing, AND it slows traffic.

Yep Let me find them.
Still finding 'em?

Okay:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/26/national/main683300.shtml

http://www.yuricareport.com/BushSecondTerm/PoliceShowdownOverSchiavoAverted.html

The orginal is here but I'm not giving my info over to spam companies just to view it.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11229201.htm

The orginal is here but I'm not giving my info over to spam companies just to view it.

A sentiment that does you credit.

That's not what I thought it would be. Those are two police agencies, not the National Guard. State police and local/county law enforcement.

That's not what I thought it would be. Those are two police agencies, not the National Guard. State police and local/county law enforcement.
Yes, Lone Alliance was a little misleading as to the incident - particularly the emotional subtext of the "showdown", which sounded like a bit of a non-starter... IMO, of course.

I was watching CNN a few days ago, the had a segment called "Strategic Sessions" or somthing to that effect. There was a political strategist from the Democrats and one from the Republicans. When asked about protecting mass transit from a London like attack the Republican strategist stated that her party would like airport like security for all mass transit. At first this didn't sound like a terrible goal, then I began to think about it. That would mean armed gaurds on the streets looking through your possesions and checking your drivers liecense (which has recently become a national ID card). Does that seem dangerously close to a police state to anyone else, or am I overthinking this?

p.s. please disregard the spelling in the title.
To quote Homer Simpson, "sure, a few live would be saved; but millions would be late!"

I would like to point out that having your bags searched is the price of admission to public transportation. It's for the safety of all, and it's up to you whether you want to use it. Nobody in the US is having their bags checked on the street or having their homes illegally searched.

But I really don't care about anyones 'right' to carry weed or illegal items into those places, something I've heard at least one poster whine about on NS. The searches are targeting terrorists, not normal citizens.

I don't call that a police state or a loss of freedom - it's an inconvenience brought to you by Islamic terrorism, the same people who have attacked sixteen countries, including other Islamic countries. I think anyone blaming this issue solely on the US past/present isn't dealing with the reality of Islamic terrorism. Complaining about loss of freedom in the US should be kept in context of how other threatened nations are dealing with security. I suggest Europeans may soon be, if they aren't already, far more intrusive than the US.

1. U.S. has it.
2. U.S. has it.
3. U.S. has it.(not london though)
4. U.S. has it.
5. U.S. has it.(but can be held indefinatly)
6. U.S. has it.
7. U.S. has it.

on a side note though I do support the fox hunting ban

London does have it because i went to London three days ago and they were checking bags. I also agree with the bans on smoking and fox hunting.

Nobody in the US is having their bags checked on the street or having their homes illegally searched.
So you'd have to have your own bags or your own house illegally searched before you're willing to admit you're living in a police state?

You'll be waiting an awfully long time for that to happen - because, in a police state, there's no such thing as an "illegal" search.

You getting the picture now? By the time you let it come to pass, there'll be no form of legal recourse for you to pursue, as "illegal" searches will fall entirely within the pervue of maintaining State Security.

What's expected of a given populace living under the strictures of martial law is a fundamental shifting away from petty concerns such as individual rights and freedoms, and an acceptance of the overriding dictates of the state.

By the time you're all done being brainwashed, you'll all either happily submit to what Sabbatis him/herself terms "illegal" searches - or you'll end up on somebody's list, or worse.
Complaining about loss of freedom in the US should be kept in context of how other threatened nations are dealing with security. I suggest Europeans may soon be, if they aren't already, far more intrusive than the US.
I suggest you're dodging the issue. And downplaying the loss of freedoms in the US by comparing the US to other, un-named countries doesn't help. In fact, you're helping to enable those who would promulgate a police state mentality by this last.

So you'd have to have your own bags or your own house illegally searched before you're willing to admit you're living in a police state?

You'll be waiting an awfully long time for that to happen - because, in a police state, there's no such thing as an "illegal" search.

You getting the picture now? By the time you let it come to pass, there'll be no form of legal recourse for you to pursue, as "illegal" searches will fall entirely within the pervue of maintaining State Security.

What's expected of a given populace living under the strictures of martial law is a fundamental shifting away from petty concerns such as individual rights and freedoms, and an acceptance of the overriding dictates of the state.

By the time you're all done being brainwashed, you'll all either happily submit to what Sabbatis him/herself terms "illegal" searches - or you'll end up on somebody's list, or worse.

I suggest you're dodging the issue. And downplaying the loss of freedoms in the US by comparing the US to other, un-named countries doesn't help. In fact, you're helping to enable those who would promulgate a police state mentality by this last.

You are misinterpreting what I said, Dobbs. I am not willing to have my bags or home illegally searched - the point is that neither have occurred, to the best of my knowledge, certainly not with my property. I believe that Constitutional safeguards will prevent that from occurring. The search of bags being placed on public transportation is not now, nor was it ever, illegal. It could have been done many years ago, it just wasn't necessary then.

I understand and share your concern, though I'm frankly puzzled why a Canadian is so concerned by a US-specific issue. I am personally concerned that a slow and relatively painless erosion of freedoms could be instituted, and if it is I'll be fighting right beside you for legal change.

Put a frog in a pot of boiling water, turn up the heat slowly, and he'll boil alive before jumping out of the pot. Yeah, it's possible, and I don't want that either. I don't think we're anywhere near that, and the hyperventilating about searching bags on trains is a too much and too soon.

I am not downgrading the inconvenience - I so far will not acknowledge this as a loss of freedom, let alone loss of rights - by comparing US public safety policy to that of Britain, France, Germany, etc. I am observing that many nations have adopted similar, if not more restrictive, policies to protect the public. Don't be US-specific if your concern is police states. Plenty of cameras and bag searching going on in Europe. Probably in Canada, too.

So you'd have to have your own bags or your own house illegally searched before you're willing to admit you're living in a police state?

You'll be waiting an awfully long time for that to happen - because, in a police state, there's no such thing as an "illegal" search.
I think that you've got a far too open interpretation of the term "police state". America is not one and neither is any western European country. Try telling people who lived in Chile and Greece in the 1970s, that you're living in a police state. You're not.