Are You Sure We're Not Living In a Police State?

[Autolykos]

Good morning, everyone. Just read this gem by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:

A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV. Go to House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads: "There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ’United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’." This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security." The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony." The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS). "A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion. The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"? You can bet that the Alito/Roberts court will rule that it is whatever the executive branch says. The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights. We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo. Many naïve Americans will write to me to explain that this new provision in the reauthorization of the "Patriot Act" is necessary to protect the president and other high officials from terrorists or from harm at the hands of angry demonstrators: "No one else will have anything to fear." Some will accuse me of being an alarmist, and others will say that it is unpatriotic to doubt the law’s good intentions. Americans will write such nonsense despite the fact that the president and foreign dignitaries are already provided superb protection by the Secret Service. The naïve will not comprehend that the president cannot be endangered by demonstrators at SENS at which the president is not present. For many Americans, the light refuses to turn on. In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo? By Stalin’s time Lenin and Trotsky had eliminated all members of the "oppressor class," but that did not stop Stalin from sending millions of "enemies of the people" to the Gulag. It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?

Here's the link to the article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts142.html

I also decided to look up the report myself. This is what I found from my Google search:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...el=TOC_208072&

I'd really like to know what everyone else thinks about this. As for me, I think things are getting out of control. Then again, they have been for a long time.

- Rob

[snake]

I will grant that alot is going on behind the scenes that shouldnt be happening but people have a knack for the dramatic. I mean a police state...get real. If we were really in a policed state many members on this very site would soon be visited "the men in black", The fact is that the patriot act has not utterly changed american life, I bet if you took a poll only about 1 out of twenty could even tell you what the patriot act does. It has been blown out of proportion, but thankfully most people realize this and ignore allegations.

Now Autolykos when it comes to the new police force, that is what should be giving off the warning, Im glad you put that on here or I ,regretfully, probaly wouldnt have known. The idea of it being permanent is the closest thing to evidence of a police state ive seen or heard. I can see it now, instead of being the Secret Service theyre just gonna start calling them the SS.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: snake I will grant that alot is going on behind the scenes that shouldnt be happening but people have a knack for the dramatic. I mean a police state...get real. If we were really in a policed state many members on this very site would soon be visited "the men in black", The fact is that the patriot act has not utterly changed american life, I bet if you took a poll only about 1 out of twenty could even tell you what the patriot act does. It has been blown out of proportion, but thankfully most people realize this and ignore allegations.

They obviously do not need to comletely crush freedom of speech entirely to be considered overstepping the bounds of reason, and the law.

Quote by: snake Now Autolykos when it comes to the new police force, that is what should be giving off the warning, Im glad you put that on here or I ,regretfully, probaly wouldnt have known. The idea of it being permanent is the closest thing to evidence of a police state ive seen or heard. I can see it now, instead of being the Secret Service theyre just gonna start calling them the SS.

I see no reason not too.


More evidence that both of the big established parties are guilty of cooperating on this type of legislation. More evidence that they are feeling insecure because the truth is coming out about their policies, and their place in all of this.


Seig fucking Heil.

[lili462]

would have helped maybe if everyone in congress would have read the thing before they approved it. Maybe something should be changed there and we wouldnt have to worry about these sorts of "laws"

[Osborn F Enready]

Snake said:
I mean a police state...get real. If we were really in a policed state many members on this very site would soon be visited "the men in black"

I say:
Snake, there are 300,000,000 people in this country. How many "men in black" are there? Have you noticed the recruiting drives for more "men in black"? They are happening. In a sense, you are right. At this point, though by LAW, as stated above, we are in a police state. The police state is not yet organized, or big enough to tackle what they want to tackle.

The law SHOWS what they want to tackle, which is the privacy and rights of due process of EVERY, or ANY American citizen at any time "they" deem it so, for whatever reasons "they" may dictate.

YOU argure back and say; "Well, this isn't happening to (what you) deem characteristic of a police state, in its full form." Well yes, this should be obviously impossible, based on the amount of people, and the amount who fall under the "suspicion" within the citizenry, COMPARED to how many "enforcers" there are. HOWEVER, once this law is applied PERMANENTLY, as Herr Bush wants it to be, the "enforcers" will increase exponentially, as a tax payer burden, and will have absolute, total concentration of search, seizure and incarceration abilities, REMOVING due process from ever being an option.

Perhaps you should wake up, and smell what you are shovelling?

Snake said:
The fact is that the patriot act has not utterly changed american life.

I say:
Yet, to be sure. But is it not obvious this is a broad and sweeping RE-interpretation of your rights, and all rights of all citizens and that if passed, would render the Constitution utterly useless to people, since their rights would cease to exist concerning privacy and due process? Obviously if it is such a broad and sweeping change, and the "enforcers" are severely undermanned for the "new" job that has been placed on them, the effects as of now SHOULD be minimal REGARDLESS of the intentions?

Changes such as this, would take years to show provable corruption, but that SURELY would not mean that corruption COULDN'T or WOULDN'T exist. In fact, it would remove all REASONS to NOT BE corrupt, since all checks and balances would be cancelled by the law, and all citizens would be SUBJECTS.

How is it that this is NOT logical or reasonable extension of the logic expressed in the law? Where is the built in transparency of the law? Where is the built in oversight of the law? There is none.

Snake said:
I bet if you took a poll only about 1 out of twenty could even tell you what the patriot act does.

I say:
Thank you for voicing my opinion of how uneducated Americans are, thanks to the public school system and the corporatized, and politically neutered media. Kudos!

Snake said:
It has been blown out of proportion, but thankfully most people realize this and ignore allegations.

I say:
Wait, let me get this straight. You are thankful that because since people are so uneducated about the facts, that they ignore any skepticism that may provide further education of the facts?

Or are you just thankful that people in general, tend to be sheepish, and prefer to be herded as opposed to being shepards? Are you are sheep, or a shepard?

The fact is, Bush and his puppet administration, are cheerleading a piece of law that is blatantly, on many levels ANTI-Constitutional. Not only are they responsible for PROPOSING it, they are also responsible for playing on the fears of the nation, and the Congress and Senate, in getting it passed after 9-11. Not only that, but they also are RUSHING to make the law changes permanent!

Hmmmmm, gee, wonder what seems so fishy about this???

Could it be that it is a rotting, dead, stinking fish sitting in tropical sun?!?!?!?!?!? Why yes, I do believe so!

Snake said:
The idea of it being permanent is the closest thing to evidence of a police state ive seen or heard. I can see it now, instead of being the Secret Service theyre just gonna start calling them the SS.

I say:
I agree. I know dear Leader(Bush) has not forgotten his true loyalties,or his Grand-daddies. Seich Heil Herr Bush, und Vaterland Sekurity!

[underbear1]

Police States sneak up on a society, it begins with who's rights aren't quite equal, and who's prosecuted unfairly based on race/sex/orientation/creed, then add the first judge to decide a case on political grounds rather than justice, the results can be grave. Read the Nuremburg Trials.

[tivodan1116]

Ok, I am as much against the Patriot Act and the trappings of a police state as anyone... I'm a libertarian and think that this government is far too large and overreaching.

However, Dr. Roberts, who is not a lawyer (an economist, i believe) has this one completely wrong.

There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ’United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’." This new federal police force

Patently incorrect. The Secret Service Uniformed Division has existed since 1860. It merged into its present form in 1930 after an unknown intruder waltzed into the White House dining room. It is by no means a new federal police force.

link

The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

And? So what? Every police officer in the country has this power. Read it again, closer...

make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence

(emphasis added)
Yes, police are empowered to make arrests when they witness a criminal offense without first going to a judge and getting an arrest warrant. Street patrols would be pretty ineffective otherwise... "Umm wait here Mr. bank robber for three hours while I go get a judge and have him write an arrest warrant for you."

or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

(emphasis added)
Again, every police officer in the country has this power. This clause is merely a fancy way to say that if police have probable cause to make an arrest, they can do so without a warrant. Note that other laws currently in place would prevent them from entering a home or other private property to do so without a warrant, just as they do now.

So, go on, continue discussing that the federal government is overreaching. I completely agree. Just be aware that the original article upon which this thread is based is complete horse crap.

[Milton Bradley]

The difference is it's redundancy, on top of redundancy.


We have the Police, the State Police, and their Deputies, the Federal Marshal's, and their Deputies, what the Hell do we need more police for?


"Please help stamp out, and abolish redundancy."
Department of Redundancy Department

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Ok, I am as much against the Patriot Act and the trappings of a police state as anyone... I'm a libertarian and think that this government is far too large and overreaching. However, Dr. Roberts, who is not a lawyer (an economist, i believe) has this one completely wrong. ...Just be aware that the original article upon which this thread is based is complete horse crap.

What do you make of this allegation from Roberts' article?

The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights. We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.

Previously the Uniformed Division was to protect certain assets and officers, specifically (from your link):

the White House Complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and other Presidential offices; the President and members of the immediate family; the temporary official residence of the Vice President in the District of Columbia; the Vice President and members of the immediate family; and foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and throughout the United States, and its territories and possessions, as prescribed by statute.

Do you think that the Secret Service has any chance of being used as a secret police force?

I certainly do...

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Patrick, and I think it won't be long if left unfettered, that the Fed will try to "incorporate" special police units into its classifications of Secret Service. By Special Police units I mean things like the S.W.A.T., Drug Task Forces, and all modern military styled police units.

[Milton Bradley]

We're getting a shiny new Gang Task Force in Toledo, so its not like we even need Federal intrusion into our lives to see this kind of tyrannical behavior, but it is comforting to know that they are planning it for us at so many levels.


Just when you thought there was chance of paying off past generations debt, and getting a chance to work toward your own ends, you get sent bills for this kind of crap. ( Ironically, Ohio just got outed as having spent a portion of their Fatherland Security money buying flak jackets for their K-9's.)


These bastards aren't even able to competently oversee the Trillions of dollars flowing through the Treasury. For that reson alone government should be absolved, and we should attempt to start over.

[Apeman81]

“The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

What’s new about this? A uniformed officer witnessing an attack “offense against the United States committed in their presence,” or suspected of “any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States” has always had the power to arrest without a warrant. This is nothing new. Local Police Officers have had the same powers for centuries. An officer can ee someone committing a crime, or receive a call about a person committing a crime, and the officer can then arrest the person upon sight.

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws...8000-1250.html

Oh, Gee, look! Here’s the same verbiage dating back years.

All that wind taken from the sails.

”(C) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony;”

[PatrickHenry]

Apeman, the trouble is that the USA PATRIOT Act makes lots of stuff felonies that shouldn't be.
Here's the Act: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

The definitions are interpretable and so broad that a person could be charged with terrorism for a protest that allegedly crossed a blurry line. Then the Secret Service Police step in and arrest the protestor and charge them with a felony. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but I wouldn't count on it, in light of previous occurrences. http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line. When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

[Apeman81]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Apeman, the trouble is that the USA PATRIOT Act makes lots of stuff felonies that shouldn't be.

Name some, please.

Quote by: PatrickHenry The definitions are interpretable and so broad that a person could be charged with terrorism for a protest that allegedly crossed a blurry line. Then the Secret Service Police step in and arrest the protestor and charge them with a felony. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but I wouldn't count on it, in light of previous occurrences. http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

I don't believe it will "come to that". In a time of warm such as we are now in, and IMO, bot just as it relates to Iraq, a quicker response time to act in the nation's defense is necessary.

Thus far, the patriot act has had little to no impact on the citizenry. And the alarmist flag has been raised often. As it was with this thread. So I have to find no need to worry.

But my eyes are not closed to the possibilities. I defended the Constitution for 22 years, and have given up doing so.

[Milton Bradley]

Why do we need all the redunadancy? I thought we were already paying an ever increasing number of people to investigate crime. Silly me. What will these people be doing that the other flavors of police are not doing?


Could it be that the regular police concern themselves to much with of the ordinary affairs of the citizens, and have no time to investigate real crime, against real adversarries? I guess they're too busy taking peoples kids away for domestic violence, and chasing dopers, and prostitutes.


Has it ever occured to any of you that if the Police got out of our business, they could actually accomplish the jobs they are payed to perform?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why do we need all the redunadancy? I thought we were already paying an ever increasing number of people to investigate crime. Silly me. What will these people be doing that the other flavors of police are not doing? Could it be that the regular police concern themselves to much with of the ordinary affairs of the citizens, and have no time to investigate real crime, against real adversarries? I guess they're too busy taking peoples kids away for domestic violence, and chasing dopers, and prostitutes. Has it ever occured to any of you that if the Police got out of our business, they could actually accomplish the jobs they are payed to perform?

"I guess they're too busy taking peoples kids away for domestic violence, and chasing dopers, and prostitutes."

We, as a society, have decided that these activities are not tolerable. Should we leave children to be abused by their doper, prostitute Mom and their doper, pimp baby-daddy?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Apeman81 "I guess they're too busy taking peoples kids away for domestic violence, and chasing dopers, and prostitutes." We, as a society, have decided that these activities are not tolerable. Should we leave children to be abused by their doper, prostitute Mom and their doper, pimp baby-daddy?

If they could prove these things beyond the shadow of doubt, no.


But that is not how the system operates any more. I don't believe anybody could make the case that State has not intruded into the lives of its citizens to a point well beyond what the founders ever intended, or than is healthy for our society.

[Athena]

Quote by: Autolykos Good morning, everyone. Just read this gem by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: Here's the link to the article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts142.html I also decided to look up the report myself. This is what I found from my Google search: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...el=TOC_208072& I'd really like to know what everyone else thinks about this. As for me, I think things are getting out of control. Then again, they have been for a long time. - Rob

Although I have spoken against revolution, that is because I am strongly in favor of revolution, and just want to be sure the revolution gets the desired results. We have nothing left to defend if we allow this act to stand, and that leaves only revolution.

[Athena]

Quote by: Apeman81 "I guess they're too busy taking peoples kids away for domestic violence, and chasing dopers, and prostitutes." We, as a society, have decided that these activities are not tolerable. Should we leave children to be abused by their doper, prostitute Mom and their doper, pimp baby-daddy?

This is another subject. If you want to start for a thread for it, I have a lot to say about it, as I fought the state to get custody of my grandchildren. After I tried to get the state to help me protect my daughter and grandchildren from their abusive hushand/father. It was a lesson in tyranny I will never forget.

We took the first step to a police state when we replaced liberal education that prevented crime and other anti social acts, include corrupt industry and corrupt politics, with education for a technological society with unknown values. Sorry for talking off subject on your thread, but until there is enough understanding of what I am saying, to have an active thread, the only way to raise awareness is to relate this New World Order to immediate interest in what is in the news.

[Apeman81]

Athena, this thread was dead from the start since its premise was false.

I would enjoy discussing your education and crime position. If you'd like to, please start such a thread.