Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Senn Typhos]

The US has taken zero steps towards being a "police state."

Folks who use that term so rarely understand what it means.

[Mizhara]

The US has taken zero steps towards being a "police state."

Folks who use that term so rarely understand what it means.

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[3]

The blocking of media access to the events, the excessive force used to break protests against the current politics and economical state, the severe restrictions on mobility put on these protests? They're steps towards a police state. I'm not saying the US is one at this point, but it's inching closer than what it was a decade ago.

[Senn Typhos]

Media access has not been blocked. I'm watching media coverage as we speak.

Excessive force is not an approved method. That's why it's called "excessive force" and why police are brought under investigation.

We are allowed to openly disagree with our government as long as we aren't impeding the function of daily life. This is why we have protest agreements and barricade arrangements.

If I want to, I can leave the house at 9am, purchase a bottle of vodka and a copy of Hustler, go home and blog about how much I hate the government, and thumb through my copy of the Communist Manifesto. Guess how likely it is that an officer will kick down me door, push me up against a wall and put a hollow point round in my skull for doing so.

Because things aren't going how one individual thinks they ought to, does not a police state make.

[Mizhara]

Media access -has- been attempted blocked. There's a reason they've lodged a giant pile of complaints whenever the police starts herding them away from the events and even denies news helicopters access.

Show me the police officers being brought under investigation. I won't claim that I am omniscient, so it may be happening without me seeing it, but so far all I've seen are statements saying that the force used is acceptable and justified.

And like I said before, I'm not saying the US is currently a police state. I'm saying all these little steps towards it are dangerous and need to be investigated and handled before they become acceptable.

[orange]

On the censorship note: I didn't make myself quite clear there. The censorship I was referring to was how the police forces were denying the media access to the areas during actions. The excuse was 'for your safety' which in turn became rather ridiculous when they also denied any press coverage from helicopters or safe areas. It's not censorship in the newsrooms, but censorship at the level of information gathering itself. There's been repeated protests and complaints lodged from various media entities against these things as they're allegedly unlawful. I'm not familiar with US law to the extent where I can say anything on that, but I'm sure they know what they're talking about there.

I think I have given a possible reason for the denial of helicopter coverage.   Something to consider when dealing with the issue of censorship is that the media has a vested interest in access and may not give us, the consumer, a full picture of why/how they were denied certain means of access.

In NYC, in the past 4 days, the Police have been ordered not to interfere unreasonably with journalists’ access during news media coverage and warning that those who do will be subject to disciplinary action.

As for why I'm so interested in Occupy in the States, and more importantly the violence and force used by the police, well... It's quite simply a matter of self-preservation. The US is, like it or not, one of the major powers in the world. It's one of our military allies and the US dictates a lot of politics around the world. I have a very vested interest in the way the American politics and economy is progressing since it ultimately affects my country as well. Every step taken towards the US turning into a police state, allowing rampant abuse of power, allowing money to dictate politics, allowing excessive violence to be used without repercussion and allowing the police to deny media coverage of important events... they're all steps towards a world where the US becomes a problem instead of an ally to count on.

Egypt and Syria are also on my radar, of course, but they're not as dangerous to me and mine as the US is becoming.

I highlight these failures because each of them is a small step in a very dangerous direction.

All I can do is hope that it doesn't get worse, because if this becomes the norm then we're all going to get fucked before someone manages to put a stop to it all.

It is not the US military, FBI, or even various State police involved in these incidents.  The United States government nor its component State governments are interacting with these protesters.   It is the local city police and local government.

You asked what we as Americans are doing, but that is a loaded question.

Something I would ask you to remember when looking at the US is just how big and diverse we are.

LA is 4,000 km / 2500 miles away from NYC which is roughly the is the equivalent of Edinburgh to Damascus or Cairo.    LA, CA is 600 km / 375 miles from Davis, CA, roughly the equivalent of Edinburgh to Portsmouth.   Is it fair of me to ask a resident of Edinburgh what they are doing with regards to the situation in Cairo?  Or how they are involved in dealing with the policies of an university in Portsmouth?

Show me the police officers being brought under investigation. I won't claim that I am omniscient, so it may be happening without me seeing it, but so far all I've seen are statements saying that the force used is acceptable and justified.

Occupy protester's miscarriage claim questioned,  notice the police are doing an investigation, but they are having trouble finding evidence that she was indeed pregnant.

The UC Davis incident is going to be investigated and will include students, facility, and administrators in the panel doing the investigation.  I suspect Lt Pike will be fired for his actions at the very least.

These articles are not being as thoroughly posted and spread like wildfire over the internet.

[Misan]

Interesting article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?CMP=twt_gu

[orange]

Interesting article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?CMP=twt_gu

It is indeed interesting. 

My one question is why is it in The Guardian?  If it is an opinion piece, why did she not publish it in the New York Times or Los Angeles Times?   If the target audience is actually American voters then she should target us, not the UK.

And to quote one of the commenters:

The specific calls for reform you make are all valid, but they are mixed in with a lot of overblown rhetoric about civil war and vast conspiracies.

'Congress' is hardly a homogeneous group; you seem to have forgotten that Democrats control one house of congress and the presidency. Did Obama order the DHS to launch the 'civil war' against Occupy? If so he must be unusually Machiavellian, having given the movement cautious support a day or two ago. Or are you seriously claiming that Peter King, head of a single congressional subcommittee, has operational command of the DHS while the president is out of the country?

And what is the nature of this Stasi-like security apparatus you imagine that connects university police at UC Davis with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the state police? What of the numerous demonstrations across the country that have not been met with violence? Isn't it frankly more likely that there is no organised conspiracy based on fear of the protesters' demands (in fact legislation is already pending to redress the recent insider trading revelations), but that events are the result of a patchwork of incompetence and brutality within a few local police organisations and individual officers?

[Mizhara]

There's a lot of other commenters that should be noted as well.

I don't understand why Americans are shocked that this has happened. Your government has been arresting and imprisoning people without charge (Guantanamo Bay) and without much challenge from the public. If the government are allowed to behave this way, they will become emboldened. And they will start to move against the citizens in other ways. It reminds me of that saying about the nazis.

When they came for the Jews I did not stand up because I was not a Jew
When they came for the Communists, I did not stand up because I was not a Communist.
When they came for the Homosexuals, I did not stand up because I was not a Homosexual.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up.

The US government started with "terrorists", have moved on to protestors. Who will be next?

As an example.

Now, I'm not saying they're automatically right, but I think it's important to note the sheer amount of people feeling this way, across the entire world. Something is very wrong when the US is considered the next best thing to Germany anno 1940. This was one of the less hateful comments. As for why it's in the Guardian rather than NY Times or whatever... well, I refer you to the picture I linked earlier. This isn't exactly a popular subject in the US, it'd appear.

Very good to see that at least a few of the incidents will be investigated, though. It remains to be seen whether or not there'll be any actual repercussions. Still... it's scary to think that these things have happened in the first place. The size of your country is kind of irrelevant, to be honest. You are still represented in government and a letter, e-mail or a phonecall isn't exactly that time-consuming to send off, and your opinion on the way things have been done so far should be voiced to them whether you think it's a-okay or not.

I have an addendum to the previous post where I answered why I'm so interested in the Occupy movement:

I'm afraid. I'm afraid of the United States. Unlawful warfare and invasion. Unwarranted as well. Torture and imprisonment without charges or oversight. Money ruling politics and jackbooted stomping on those who protest it. Do you see how insanely scary this is coming from what is supposed to be a 'good' nation? It's very hard -not- to glance at our oil reserves and consider ourselves a possible future target. It's also very hard not to feel ashamed at the fact that we're allied on paper. It's frightening. That is why I'm so interested in these events, because they're very scary.

[orange]

I'm afraid. I'm afraid of the United States. Unlawful warfare and invasion. Unwarranted as well.

I depends entirely on what you mean as unlawful.

Did the US follow its own Constitution in the pursuit of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya? No.  On this point I will agree the invasions are all unlawful.

Did the US have valid reasons for each action?  Yes.
Afghanistan - Harboring training camps for the organization that assaulted the US.
Iraq - continued flaunting of UN Resolutions and attacks against US aircraft operating to support a UN resolution.
Libya - Supporting member of international coalition with backing from a UN Resolution.

Did it share the the valid reasons for each action? No, specifically with Iraq, it attributed the presence of weapons of mass destruction based on foreign intelligence.  Instead, it might have been seen as justifiable escalation to the decade long flaunting of UN Resolutions and occasional shooting at US aircraft enforcing the UN established No-Fly zone.*

*The follow-up question becomes do you want UN Resolutions to have teeth or are they just words?

Torture and imprisonment without charges or oversight.

I will not and cannot excuse torture.

The question of imprisonment without charges is a much tougher one.  Under the Geneva Convention, those detained are unlawful combatants and can be tried in the US Court System.  If, however, they are treated as lawful combatants they can be detained indefinitely until the conflict is resolved.   12 June 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled that those being held in US custody are unlawful combatants and should be charged and tried.  The charging and trials are underway.  (Or was there some other instance you were referencing?)

[Mizhara]

I most certainly support that UN resolutions need to have teeth. I was part of UN forces, after all. There is, however, a rather massive difference between a country/coalition invading a different country/nation and a UN Taskforce. The invasion of Iraq was not a UN invasion and that is where it all becomes very sketchy, especially given the claims of WMDs and this being a 'defending our country' move by the US.

Could the US have actual good reasons for the invasion? Absolutely. Did any of them even get mentioned? No. Nor did the US move for a UN force to pursue these concerns, but instead pursued a direct war between the two nations, citing reasons that were fraudulent at best. The Afghanistan invasion was also condemned internationally, many considering it unlawful. I don't know those legal details myself, so I can't say whether or not this holds water, but the credibility of the US in these things is starting to get frayed around the edges.

As for the imprisonment without charges bit: It's very easy to say something is legal. It's very much harder to say whether or not it was right. Especially given the laundry list of documented crimes being committed in Guantanamo Bay. Lawful combatants can be detained indefinitely... but they are also entitled to a very strict set of rights and even observers from neutral entities to ensure this. This didn't happen, as we all know. There's another very frightening aspect to this, which is the attempt to make the 'War on Terror' an actual war where civilians suddenly end up under the lawful combatant umbrella and subject to indefinite detainment in a conflict that can never end.

Anyway, if you wish to discuss the wars and that part of the past, please create a new thread or move it to PMs. This particular thread is about the Occupy movement across the world and US in particular. I know I'm the one who tangentally brought it up, but let's move it elsewhere to avoid changing the subject too much.

[orange]

Occupy LA's "eviction" would appear to call into question the idea that there is a grand conspiracy on the part of government at multiple levels.

BLUF: Protesters were told to clear the streets by 0400 to allow other citizens to go about their business.  At 0430, the police arrested those still on the street.  Overall the encounter did not escalate significantly.

[Victoria Stecker]

Just for shits and giggles, the Tea Party has its panties in a wad again.


http://biggovernment.com/cowens/2011/11/28/richmond-city-audits-local-tea-party-after-standoff-with-mayor/

While I think the audit is BS, I think there are some distinctions to be made between OWS and the Tea Party and as such have no problem throwing out the invoice they decided to send to the governor.

[Mizhara]

I'm speechless. This shit passed?

[Kasuko]

Wow.

[Victoria Stecker]

Looks like it says it's likely to pass, not that it has yet. We'll see what happens. Personally, I think Obama might just grow some balls and veto it. Otherwise the Supreme court gets to go lolno, the constitution does still exist even if we ignore a little bit of it.