United States becoming Police State

[Rail Gun]

"On this one-year anniversary of 9/11, I thought it might be worthwhile to review some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks. If 9/11 was an 'attack on our freedoms,' just whose side is our government on?"

From the Associated Press:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

[Hkmp5sd]

I think you are correct in that we are swinging way too far toward a police state. I think the government is still on our side, but is reacting to the incident with everything they can think of without looking at the consequences of those actions and new laws.

A lot of these actions are merely PC and "feel good" reactions to make the common uninformed American think that the government is now protecting them from all harm.

A lot are also tyring to rapidly recover from the massive damage the Clinton administration did to the military, CIA, FBI, NSA and other intelligence agencies.

There is a fine line between Sun Tzu's "Plan for what your enemy can do, not what you think he will do" and "He who protects everything, protects nothing."

Hopefully, we can reach that point with the Constitution intact.

[Art Eatman]

The Police State aspect began with the intensification of efforts in the War on Drugs. "No knock", control of your money, seizure of assets, etc. That war was lost thirty years ago, but that hasn't bothered our lawmakers at all...

Now, these feel-good "Anti Terror" laws are just more of the same. The amount of harm they will do to "just folks" will depend on whether or not the political party in power is managed by folks with a benign attitude toward the citizenry, or by folks who want us all to be round pegs in round holes.

Right now, the Bushies are pretty much benign. I fear a return of such as the Clintonistas and their elitist attitudes.

Art

[CMichael]

From the Associated Press:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.<<

If they didnt' suspect criminal activity why would they monitor them? It also refers to ones that are open to the public


>>FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.<<

Yup, we are in a war. Those who are here illegally dont' get a right to have public immigration hearings.

Those who have been detained are enemy combatants in the middle of a war.

>>FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.<<

Good! They would be an obstructing an investigation. Why should they have a right to impede an investigation of terrorists? The government may not want terrorists to know they are being investigated. I can't imagine why.

>>RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.<<

You mean of course enemy combatants who are fighting with the enemy against the United Stated. Hello??? We are in a war.

>>FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.<<

Untrue. They need probably cause to seize papers. The judge authorizes it.

>>RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.<<

Once again you mean enemy combatants.

>>RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
<<

Once again we are in a war. Prisoners of war and unlawful combatants don't and shouldn't have the rights that those are not enemy combatants have regardless if they happen to be American citizens.

The government not giving the normal rights has been used extremely sparingly against American citizens. It was also reviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee in the case of Padilla.

Both cases have been very public and there is little doubt of the guilt.

Mr. Jo American has lost zero rights unless you include not being allowed to bring a pen knife on board a commercial airplane.

Michael

[Don Gwinn]

Aw, that's a terrible exaggeration. Take the searches and seizures part, for example. They still have to have probable cause to search your house or seize your info or effects!!

They just don't have to tell you about it or show you a warrant, at least for another 90 days. But as long as you trust all the judges and all the police to be good guys and strict Constitutionalists, what's the problem?

[Christopher II]

Go ahead, Mike. Keep repeating it. You obviously believe it, maybe the rest of us will eventually.

- Chris

[labgrade]

"The government not giving the normal rights has been used extremely sparingly against American citizens."

The government not giving the normal rights ... !? not giving??

That statement alone shows just how .... well, I almost violated a TFL rule.

"It was also reviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee ... "

Ahahahaha. Senate Intelligence Committee must be right up there with jumbo shrimp as an oxymoron.

Even without these latest insults, I'd say any country that has 6M+ of its citizens wrapped in the criminal justice system (another oxymoron) has its priorities all outa whack.

[CMichael]

Labgrade guess what? We are are in a war.

Enemy combatants, even US citizens, don't get to call a lawyer as soon as they are detained.

I'm a lot more interested in the prevention of a terrorist attack then making sure Padilla has the max civil liberties so he can go out and nuke DC.


Michael

[Sodbuster]

Don, you had me wondering at first what you were saying!
Sad but true, the Fourth Amendment has seen better days.
In an interview last night (9/11) with Scott Somebody from CBS (it wasn't my TV), when asked about personal freedom concerns by some regarding the War on Terror, Dubya says he is going by the Constitution. Said it with a straight face, too, without any type of follow-up question.

[BenW]

The amount of harm they will do to "just folks"....

Will not only depend on lawmakers' interpretation of these laws, but those of some of the "just folks" as well. I personally believe we lost this war the day they took the first fingernail clippers from the first little old lady at the airport. The fact that 90% of the US populace didn't scream bloody murder at this says a lot in how far we've come in allowing the government to "protect us" through regulation (and whacko intrepretations thereof).

[labgrade]

Earth to CMichael ....

We have been in A War (TM) against: (some) drugs, poverty, illiteracy, ad nauseum, with little to no possitive result. A, perhaps, THE downside, all have been at the expense of the peoples' liberties and their money.

The anti-gun crusaders have further gutted any semblance of rights.

The aforementioned asset forfeiture laws steal our stuff without a trial ... ya know, we were so far around the bend before 9/11/01, that we couldn't see the curve from there.

& now we have new & improved laws that, although they haven't been used against the general population as yet (other than yer odd duck), what, pray tell, laws not already on the books could not be used to prosecute any possible suspected terrorist activity?

A general reaction of government when a crisis arises is to pass further legislation to lull the sheep into thinking that something is being done. Big problem is all these laws just lying around waiting to be used.

[Kaylee]

We are in a war.

A "War" is declared by Congress, and has a definable, achievable end-game. The "War on Terror," like the "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" before it, has neither attribute. Like FDR's state of emergency, it is a nebulous "time of crisis" used to justify all sorts of unconstitutional edicts, that never....quite.....ends.

Unless of course your income tax withholding for WWII has stopped?

I'll believe 'em when I see them voluntarily relinquish power seized in "emergency" and say "okay, we've accomplished enough. The evildoers are done for. We're rescinding the PATRIOT act now."

-K

[Scott Conklin]

I'm a lot more interested in the prevention of a terrorist attack then making sure Padilla has the max civil liberties so he can go out and nuke DC.

I'm a lot more interested in preserving the Constitution and BoR and our individual Rights than I am in this fantasy the fedgov can "prevent" another nebulous "terror" attack. Fact is that no matter what they can't stop it and so we sacrifice Freedom not for Sekurity but for nothing...nothing at all.

[CMichael]

I am still getting over a virus so I probably won't write as much as I normally will.

I will be happy to field the question about why treat them as combatants.

1) They are combatants. In fact they are unlawful combatants and are not even subject to the rules of war according to the Geneva Convention.

2) Law enforcement needs to be preventative. In other words it needs to capture the terrorists before they detonate a nuclear bomb in Washington D.C. Usually law enforcement is much better at investigating crimes after their occur. They don't have the luxury in this case. This means that cases may not be air tight.

3) In order to capture a terrorist law enforcement may use informants. If the defendant and/ or the terrorist organization is able to figure out who the informant that informant will be killed and will not be availalbe to give other intelligence information which could lead to a successful terrorist attack

4) Revealing information in a civilian trial also will release intelligence gathering capabilities which the enemy can use to launch a successful terrorist attack.

5) In a civilian trial, the verdict must be unanamious. In a military trial you need 2/3ds. There are a lot of stupid people out there. If a terrorist gets released because of that reason the person it could lead to further terrorist attacks

6) Al Qaida could intimidate jurors. They have shown how they have homicide bombers. They surely could stop at nothing to intimidate jurors or even judges

The Constitution is not being bypassed. There are provisions for how combatants can be treated. That is part of the laws.

And no the war isn't abstract. It wasn't poverty or drugs that commandeered those aircrafts that plowed into the WTC and Pentagon, it was members of the Al Qaida terrorist network.

Michael

[Scott Conklin]

They are combatants? In the latter case, at least, he's a combatant because the government said so, period. No evidence, hearing, trial or proof. The fed said so. So, when the fed says you or I are also because we do or say something the fed dislikes that'll be OK as well? That is the eventual scenerio you are defending.

Absolute observable fact: If we give the government more unconstitutional power(and 90% of fedgov already is unconstitutional)they will multiply that power with each successive admin. Meanwhile terrorist activity will continue unabated just as poverty and drugs and gangs have. I see no benefits here. We merely lose on two fronts instead of one.

Best answer? Go kill the enemy where ever he may be and screw world opinion or support. But that doesn't get the nuts in government more power and control and that is what this(and to them everything) is about.

[Futo Inu]

CMichael, the problem here is that you fail to see the big picture - you fail to see that it could happen to YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU! That's the difference between a law-and-order-at-all-costs-type, and others - they've either seen a gov't railroad job happen to themselves, a loved one, or someone they know, or if not, they simply can observe how easily it COULD happen if you simply make an enemy in gov't, or circumstances make it appear that you're engaged in "terrorist activities" - after all, owning guns is known by all politicians in D.C. and LEOs to be a sure sign that you might be a terrorist, right? And if you're so nutty that you actually own gunpowder and make your own ammunition, you surely are probably a terrorist capable of making bombs, especially if your skin is a little darker than most, or you have a mohammed as one of your names.

The gov't can label anyone they feel like (YOU) as an "enemy combatant" and hold them (YOU) for any length of time without counsel or a hearing. If you don't think it could happen to innocents (YOU), then you haven't studied the action of our gov't and others in the past.

A war on "terror" is not a war. It's something that never ends, and regardless of it's success, is not worth the tradeoff in terms of lost civil liberties, which is what America is all about, not safety. If you want safety, go to Canada or somewhere else. If you want freedom, then speak out against jackass Gestapo thugs like Ashcroft and the lawmakers who brought us the Patriot Act, et al, ad nauseum.

We've already made a decision as a nation that keeping innocents from being wrongly jailed and convicted is more important than stopping all guilty from going free. If you don't agree with that value judgment, then fine - go tell your congressmen to introduce a bill to amend the constitution - until then - you're in la-la land, IMO, if you think that this is a true war that can be won, and will end at a certain time, and if you think that these erosions are not incredibly frightening, unconstitutional steps down a slippery slope to hell.

All of what you said might make sense if it WAS truly a war, with defined boundaries. It should have been named a war on Osama Bin Laden - then we could tell whether or not we've won - and of course, we haven't.

[tyme]

Enemy combatants, even US citizens, don't get to call a lawyer as soon as they are detained.

Says what controlling authority? Yes, there might be a problem with terrorists in the country. So what? That's the fault of a decade of loose immigration policy and even looser borders, not universal application of the BoR for citizens. Johnny Taliban? Well, it seems to me we "got" him. How is it a problem with the Bill of Rights when the DoJ screws up an investigation?

I'm sick to death of the DoJ arresting citizens, violating their rights, then backing down and turning the BoR switch back on. If they really believe in what they're doing, they should ignore the courts and accept any later public backlash or retaliation that arises from their actions.

[Tropical Z]

What is happening in America today will eventually lead us directly into the second U.S. civil war.The only alternative i can see is a breakup of the United States similar to what happened to the Soviet Union.When and if that occurs i sincerely hope that all of the stupid liberals who are bringing most of this on,move to whatever part of the country becomes theirs and rot in their own immoral stew!

[Dave B]

i sincerely hope that all of the stupid liberals who are bringing most of this on

If it's not too much trouble, could you explain what you wrote?

db

[David Scott]

The cavir-slurping, limo-riding elitists who are the only ones with the cash to get elected truly believe that it is their duty to run the lives of we lesser mortals. Drugs and terrorists are convenient excuses to impose more control over the lives of the less privileged, "for their own good". Feudalism is alive, only now it wears Brooks Brothers suits instead of armor.

[spacemanspiff]

an illegal immigrant is automatically assumed to be an enemy combatant now? while i dont think that they should be allowed to stay in this country illegally, they arent necessarily a combatant.

i think the point of this is that the government is enacting its war on SUPPOSED terrorists here within our borders, and the methods being used could very well be put to use to infringe on the rights of lawful americans, if the government decides to be done with any religion they want, or any national group. it is setting a precedent for the government to take action on whomever it considers an enemy without the veil of a war on terrorism. and thats all well and good until you are part of a group the government labels 'enemy'. suppose its mormons next. or catholics. or moonies. or National Organization of Men Against Amazonian woMen (NO MAAM).

[labgrade]

Pop Quiz time.

Who, of our electeds, got to read the Patriot Act (gawd! to even type it :barf: ) before they voted upon it?

& not to turn this into a Bush-basher or OT - it's quite entertaining in its own right - I'd daresay that many, if not most aspects of the PA & Campaign Finance Reform (a joke, right?) are de fact unconstitutional. If so, there ya go, CM = rights being violated. Can you say 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th - for starters.

Hmm, & maybe for extra credit. How long is that patriot act? & how long before it was offered up for a "vote?" Seemed so quick at the time I'd almost think that it was pre-written for such an event as 9/11/01. 'Course then many'd think I was a tin-foiler ....

[Dave B]

What have you got against tin-foilers?

From http://www.populist.com/02.12.weiner.dummies.html

By early 2001 and into the summer, warnings were pouring in to US intelligence and military agencies from Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, and other Middle East and South Asian intelligence sources, along with Russia and Britain and the Philippines, saying that a major attack on the US mainland was in the works, involving the use of airplanes as weapons of mass destruction.

Indeed, in June and July of 2001, the alerts started to be explicit that air attacks were about to go down in the US; even local FBI offices in Phoenix and Minneapolis began passing warnings up the line about Middle Eastern men acting suspiciously at flight schools. In July, Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airliners and traveled only by private plane, and Bush, after but a few months in office, announced he was going to ground, spending the month of August on his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cheney disappeared from view, and our guess is that he was coordinating the overall, post-attack strategy.

Under this scenario, in mid-summer 2001, Bush&Co. decided this was it. Bin Laden unknowingly was going to deliver them the gift of terrorism, and they were going to run with it as far and as fast and as hard as they could. The various post-attack scenarios had been worked out, the so-called USA PATRIOT Act --which contained various police-state eviscerations of the Constitution --was polished and prepared for a rush-job (with no hearings) through a post-attack Congress, the war plans against the Taliban in Afghanistan were readied and rolled out, the air-base countries around Afghanistan were brought onboard, and so on. All during the summer of 2001.

It can't happen here...

db

[labgrade]

HINT:

"Just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks ... The House vote was 356-to-66, and the Senate vote was 98-to-1. Along the way, the Republican House leadership, in a raw display of force, jettisoned an anti-terrorism bill that the House Judiciary Committee had unanimously approved and that would have addressed a number of civil liberties concerns.3 The hastily-drafted, complex, and far-reaching legislation spans 342 pages. Yet it was passed with virtually no public hearing or debate, and it was accompanied by neither a conference nor a committee report. On October 26, the Act was signed into law by a triumphant President George W. Bush.4"

Another interesting site details some chronology.

& too, just to add to the mix, we quite jolly well may get to have the whole shebang reorganised under the "Department of Homeland Security."

We have no added security - at malls, airports, trains, cars, schools, walking down the street - nowhere. But we have lost freedoms.

Save us from sheep who bleat to any tune .....

Legislation that could perhaps have some possitive impact (such as regards immigration) will not be touched with a ten foot pole - it would offend someone, you see - wouldn't want to be called racist .... sheesh!

[labgrade]

Nothin' at all against tin foil, Dave. Just that I'm personally more inclined towards mylar.