How things change

[ordos45]

This is a good read on how America has changed during the Bush Administration.

[HasimirFenring]

Thats worse than those peace groups being infiltrated by law enforcement, as shown in Fahrenheit 9/11.

[Dude_Doc]

Yeah, it's becoming another China. I think those officers also want "something". I mean, won't they get promoted or something like that if they catch a terrorist?

[ordos45]

Probably they would.  I don't think we're at China level yet (speaking of which, how do you censor millions of text messages a day)...four more paranoid years perhaps...

Oh the peace group that was serving milk and cookies each meeting?  I found the infiltration of it as disturbing, yet...hilarious.  I don't call cookie eating peaceniks a threat.

[Dude_Doc]

Probably they would.  I don't think we're at China level yet (speaking of which, how do you censor millions of text messages a day)...four more paranoid years perhaps...

Well, in China, there are guards standing about everywhere. There are also traffic police. One such police stopped our taxi-cab once, and started to question the driver. I never really catched what it was all about, but that's about it. (We didn't stay to find out.)

But that the police would just go and grab someone like that, well, I'd say that's news... specially in the "land of the free"...

[HasimirFenring]

Then there was that other story right after the one about the peace group...  That retired utility worker who expressed an anti-bush opinion at the gym, and was reported by the other guys there.  The FBI later "dropped in" at his house...

[Dude_Doc]

And this is only 4 years. Bush has already beaten Hitler in "control-my-population". Imagine what will happen in 4 years if Bush is elected again...

On the other hand, would anything change under Kerry? Terrorism wouldn't just "go away" just because Kerry is a democrat. Guess one of them will get instructions from Skulls and Bones once one of them are elected ;) ...

[HasimirFenring]

Kerry is less likely to fight further wars, and less likely to impliment foreign policy that will anger Muslim extremists.  Also, he will move toward multi-lateralism in our foreign policy.

[Dude_Doc]

Yes, but what about Homeland Security? Isn't it unlikely that he will just give them up?

[Acriku]

It's possible for Kerry to maintain an adequate level of homeland security, but with the lack of information regarding the terrorists, we can never know what is adequate enough. To that end, I believe that we must preserve and protect, not just protect. I fear that Bush has gone to war to protect something already lost.

[Wolf]

Which was...?

[Acriku]

Democratic freedom? Just look at what is going on in our country, and you'll see.

[Wolf]

That's the thing. I don't see any widespread restriction of freedoms. I, personally, don't experience any, and other than the links that you posted, I've never heard of any before. It seems to me that all of what you guys are saying is a bit exaggerated. As I said before. Where are the ghetto fences dividing neighborhoods? Where are the outlawed opposition political parties? Where are the forced labor and death camps? Where are the soldiers on every street corner in every town? Where are the assassinations? Where are the bombings? Where are the hunted political exiles? Where is the media that is so censored as to never say an ill word of any government official? People still assemble for protest, daily. You've shown me one incident. Hundreds of parties are gearing up for the next election. Not even one, I don't believe, has suffered any more than they have before the Presidency of Bush. People like you and me can still post on this Internet and talk about politics all day, often in the least complimentary terms. Why are we not silenced? You can complain, and you are allowed to. I don't think even you're personal lives have been affected by this, even though I can't back up that claim and say its anything else than pure suspicion.

[Acriku]

My life hasn't been affected personally, no. But that's beside the point - the point is that this shouldn't happen to anyone in America.

[HasimirFenring]

Where is the media that is so censored as to never say an ill word of any government official?

It's called Fox "news".  So becuase you personally haven't been persecuted, there must not be a problem.  Ask the people who have been detained (American citizens!) for years without charges or trial because they are "enemy combatants" (which can be anyone in the war on terror).  The PATRIOT Act allows them to go through your email.  Law enforcement no longer (I'm not positive on this one, someone tell me if I'm wrong) needs to present the evidence needed to get a warrent openly in court; they can do it in a secret, closed hearing.  You don't go straight from a free democracy to a police state; it's a slippery slope.  First searches of your medical and financial records, then phone taps, and some day, elections seems like treason...

[Pethegreat]

I can see the point of all this "interragation" to a point. I don't think America is becoming another china. Any one is allowed to have suspestion even the goverment. But if the FBI taking in every person who takes a picture of the white house and throws them in jail, I think there is an issue. 

[Wolf]

Yeah, Hasimir. Does Fox control 100% of the News media? I don't think so. People almost universally Fox' loyalty to the right wing. And then they go turn on, say, NBC, or CBS, or ABC. Tom Brokaw is a Democrat, I believe. As is Peter Jennings, who recently became an American citizen. What about CNN? Who has been constantly posting 9/11 report findings, Halliburton whatnot, and other cases? I'm sorry, but your counterargument to this media point is moot. Fox still proves that this media is a free media. You can be as right or as left as you want, and the government really has no hand in it.

And people still need to get warrants, I'm almost positive about this. Judges' give warrants because that's part of their check and balance on the law-enforcement process. The PATRIOT Act only waives warrants, I think, in cases solely dealing with terrorism. If this was ever abused -- you can trust me on this, judges like their power -- our judicial system would strike down the PATRIOT Act flat. Simply because it was abused.

Oh, and hate to burst your bubble, hon, but the PATRIOT Act is far from the first government act or agency to go through your e-mail.

Further, from what you've described, all this does is make the warrant process secret. You still need a warrant, but you can do it in private rather than in public. Someone tell me how this destroys the freedom of a nation. You still have to go through a warrant process -- something that I'll bet no one chooses to observe anyway.

Secondly. Searches of medical and financial records? People search the former and the latter every day. They're called corporations. There really isn't such a thing as a private record. As annoying as it is, medical firms, hospitals, any doctor you've ever been to, has a record on you. Finanicial records are the same situation; any bank you've ever opened an account at, any credit firm, insurance firm, loan firm -- all of them. Doesn't the government need to see your financial records anyway? Called "taxation?" Doesn't the government need to see your medical records if you're on Medicare or healthcare?

In order to have the liberal paradise so commonly referred to as the welfare state, you require government knowledge of the individial on this level. Who else shall we provide medical care to? Who else shall we provide financial assistance? If anything, the reason that you're worried about a police state in the first place is because the very machinery that allows a police state to exist was created in the name of welfare.

I'm not anti-welfare, by the way, I just find the irony delicious.

[HasimirFenring]

First of all, all American news shows except public broadcasting seems conservative to me.

You made your case for all of the lesser points I mentioned, but what about the big one?  Holding American citizens for extended periods of time without access to a lawyer, without being charged, and without a trial.  THAT is profoundly dangerous; the Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree with the policy completely, but they have far from stopped it.

[Wolf]

No kidding, that one I agree with you on. I think something needs to be changed about that. But, right now, I'm not ready to call that the fetal birth of the American Police State. It's bad -- definately. And something should be done about it. But, looking on what's happened in the past... well, the Bush Administration could have done a lot worse, you know?

[HasimirFenring]

I'm not sure anything that much worse would have been tolerated.  Lincoln suspended constitutional rights to a greater extent, but that was a greater threat.  Lee's army was practically within sight of Washington!

As to the birth of a police state, not quite.  At most, this is its conception (or maybe we're only at the first kiss or something).  It is important to stop it from going any further.

[Wolf]

Haha, "first kiss?" An analogy gone too far... Anyway, that's sort of what I was referring to. And Lincoln turned out not to be so bad a man. John Adams' Alien and Sedition acts were more highly criticized (and when compared to the PATRIOT Act, much more potent), and Adams himself was preoccupied with doing the right thing for the country! From what I've heard about his biography, it appears that Adams was constantly troubled over how to use his power to do the morally upright thing for his country. I suppose, sometimes, things backfire...

[HasimirFenring]

Oh Lincoln was a great president, and everything he did was in the best interest of the country.  His actions were tolerated (the Supreme Court objected, but didn't stop him) becuase of a Clear and Present Danger to the national security of the United States.  Actions like suspending Habeas Corpus and instituting the first draft were necessary (arguably) in order to preserve the Union.  Some would say the same of our present situation; I would not.

[Wolf]

So... who's right? If some people think it's a similar situation, and some don't... then, whose actions should we undertake? While we decide that, what should we do in the meantime? If this is a situation in which immediate action is necessary, can we afford inaction while we figure out which is the most philisophically justified?

[HasimirFenring]

Well, one thing's for sure: we don't want to be like the Roman Republic and appoint a dictator whenever there is a national emergency.  I don't think that such extreme precautions (like the ones Lincoln used) are justified unless our army is being thrashed by an enemy army, on American soil, within striking distance of Washington, and the capture of our government imminent.  I don't see any Jihadists about to capture D.C.  Sacrificing our freedoms to defeat terrorism would be like curing the disease by killing the patient: we give up our liberty in the defence of our liberty.

[Wolf]

Well, that Roman system of appointing a dictator in times of crisis led to what would become one of the pillars of American democracy; civil service. The idea of this Roman system was that an averge man, a civil servant, if you will, would volunteer his time to do what was best for the nation, and once the crisis was resolved, he would return to his fields and work. I believe that the man's name in the original Roman tale was Cincinnatus. His name, and this entire story and system, would become the inspiration for George Washington's Order of Cincinnatus. A sort of recognition of soldiers who fought bravely -- but also soldiers who epitomized the ideal of civil service.

So, you see, this Roman ideal -- and many Roman ideals, really -- had quite a hand in shaping early America political thought. It could very well be that our country is made for, and perhaps even prone to, reverting to such a system. The only catch is probably what you're thinking of -- what if Cincinnatus doesn't want to go back home and be a farmer after being dictator? Well, hopefully, that's what checks and balances were supposed to do. Bear in mind that the American political sphere has evolved far from where it was and where it was intended. There were supposed to be no parties, originally. The vice president was originally the runner-up in the presidential election -- there were no running mates.