Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:00 AM Jun 2013

Would somebody please explain why this is NOT the foundation for the biggest police state in history

Yes, I realize that the most famous police states were famously ruthless and brutal. But it seems to me they all shared a common foundation, which is that the government asserted itself deeply into the lives of the citizens. The public was intimidated -- afraid even to speak anywhere they might be overheard.

We know for certain the Bush/Cheney/Obama (*) regime is accumulating vast amounts of information on millions of Americans. That is beyond dispute now. And we also know that there are well over a million people who have security clearance levels that would qualify them to see that data, although most of them probably don't have access to this information -- yet.

So what do you think is the probability that all million of them are going to treat this information with the utmost respect for the Constitution and the individual liberties mentioned therein?

I really wish people would stop wasting our time with impertinent threads about Snowdon. Who he is and why he did it are utterly irrelevant, and a gigantic smokescreen to take attention off the real issue here.

(*) It gives me great disappointment to include Obama with the Bush/Cheney administration. But Obama has had many opportunities to separate himself from that horrendous legacy, and has chosen not to do so in almost every case.

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Would somebody please explain why this is NOT the foundation for the biggest police state in history (Original Post) BlueStreak Jun 2013 OP
Awesome! Ben Stein said the same thing last night to Cavuto!!!!!111 Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #1
Do you think it would be possible to deal with the issue and not personalize it? BlueStreak Jun 2013 #2
Can you answer my question? Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #3
Are you asking me to comment on how advanced the secret programs are in other countries? BlueStreak Jun 2013 #7
My question is 100% relevant when you are claiming that the US is setting the foundation... Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #10
Then, pray, favor us with your answer. BlueStreak Jun 2013 #18
.. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #20
What is your point? BlueStreak Jun 2013 #23
Good god. Re-read this subthread. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #25
You seem to thrive on red herrings. BlueStreak Jun 2013 #29
two others who commented understand completely what I'm saying. The problem is not me. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #36
So disd The Atlantic nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #24
Ben Stein is Cavuto's acorn? Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #26
You ridicule this guy nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #31
Yeah. Thanks. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #35
Well, you should read into inverted totalitarianism nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #37
Well, at least you agree it isn't a police state. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #38
Inverted totalitarianism is a form of totalitarian state nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #39
This is not how Wolin describes it. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #40
Well, I guess we'll have to try it nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #41
This is the third time you have flatly suggested that I am supportive of these programs. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #43
So you just like to argue. Is that it? BlueStreak Jun 2013 #45
Your OP title is ridiculous. I pointed that out and supported it. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #46
why yes. The U.S. has a far, far more extensive spy apparatus than either Canada or GB cali Jun 2013 #12
That wasn't the question, but thanks for playing. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #28
The paradox of the Internet and electronics communications is that it makes it a lot harder geek tragedy Jun 2013 #4
It is like the recording industry making examples out of copyright violators BlueStreak Jun 2013 #11
Actually.... Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #19
But Snowden's the BAD GUY. sibelian Jun 2013 #5
I have to wonder if all of the "changes" in privacy that were made to Facebook Horse with no Name Jun 2013 #6
Here's MrScorpio's excellent explanation: UTUSN Jun 2013 #8
That seems to answer some different questions BlueStreak Jun 2013 #15
It puts all the hyperbole in perspective. n/t UTUSN Jun 2013 #32
It isn't hyperbole if it is true. BlueStreak Jun 2013 #34
so.... are you endorsing Scorpio's opinion or calling him out? Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #16
I am quoting MrScorpio approvingly. Why would I be calling him out?!1 n/t UTUSN Jun 2013 #30
I am not familiar with your opinions on this issue. Just trying to see where you stand. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #33
However, here we all are LanternWaste Jun 2013 #9
It could be the foundation for the biggest freedom state in history FarCenter Jun 2013 #13
The difference is that the worst thing Google has figured out to do BlueStreak Jun 2013 #17
You missed the point -- if everyone knew everything, government would loose much of its power FarCenter Jun 2013 #22
I don't think it would be a good idea BlueStreak Jun 2013 #27
Even Turley in 2011 did not quite say how bad it is marions ghost Jun 2013 #14
"Ask not what your country will do to you..." Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #21
Some folks would like us to think it's no big deal because Obama is the Prez Marrah_G Jun 2013 #42
That's EXACTLY why we should be concerned. BlueStreak Jun 2013 #44
K&R woo me with science Jun 2013 #47
K&R! Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #48
 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
1. Awesome! Ben Stein said the same thing last night to Cavuto!!!!!111
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:04 AM
Jun 2013

How 'bout them apples.

Do you happen to know how the US compares to Great Britain and Canada in this kind of activity?

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
7. Are you asking me to comment on how advanced the secret programs are in other countries?
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:20 AM
Jun 2013

And what point would that prove, even if anybody could answer that without being "disappeared".

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
10. My question is 100% relevant when you are claiming that the US is setting the foundation...
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:23 AM
Jun 2013

.... for the biggest police state in history.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
25. Good god. Re-read this subthread.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:39 AM
Jun 2013

You get the last word. Make it something really over the top and hysterical.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
29. You seem to thrive on red herrings.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:46 AM
Jun 2013

I don't see how anything in this subthread has any bearing on the topic.

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make, other than to throw up a cloud of smoke.

If your point is that the UK is also going this same direction, that is very likely the case because technology permits it. And it is just as ironic that would be a priority for the UK's national resources in a time of "austerity".

But if you think that somehow shows that this is not leading directly to a police state without precedent, I don't see that in anything you have offered the good readers here.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
24. So disd The Atlantic
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:38 AM
Jun 2013

Which called this turn key tyranny.

You continue to defend that..please.

So Neil Cavuto found an acorn.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
26. Ben Stein is Cavuto's acorn?
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:39 AM
Jun 2013


P.S. I have defended nothing, but I will not stop ridiculing those who engage in uninformed hysteria. No exceptions.
 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
35. Yeah. Thanks.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:54 AM
Jun 2013

Funny thing about that quote: Rush Limbaugh kept repeating it trying to keep the Bush admin from going crazy after 9/11. When it was clear that no one in the Bush administration was listening to anyone, Limbaugh reversed course and endorsed their actions.

I'll repeat: I am defending nothing, but I absolutely will ridicule anyone who is calling the US a police state. I sure as hell won't mince words about Ben Stein and Neil Cavuto.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
39. Inverted totalitarianism is a form of totalitarian state
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 12:01 PM
Jun 2013

It can turn into what you conceive of a police state in an instant.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
41. Well, I guess we'll have to try it
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 12:35 PM
Jun 2013

Let's put it this way, I trust no one, not even god, with this so much power, Nichollo Machievelli got it a few centuries ago, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You go on trusting. I won't, it's not a party thing, I did not trust bush with it, I don't trust Obama with it, for god sakes I did not trust Clinton with Carnivore either.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
43. This is the third time you have flatly suggested that I am supportive of these programs.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 12:42 PM
Jun 2013

This is the third and final time I'm telling you that I do not.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
12. why yes. The U.S. has a far, far more extensive spy apparatus than either Canada or GB
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:24 AM
Jun 2013

More money, more spies, more agencies, more overseas spying. You didn't know this? Wow.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
4. The paradox of the Internet and electronics communications is that it makes it a lot harder
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:18 AM
Jun 2013

for the government to silence dissent, but it makes it easier for the government to track people.

In terms of physical possibility, one person can be arrested for something they say online. But the next 100,000 who share it Facebook?

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
11. It is like the recording industry making examples out of copyright violators
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:23 AM
Jun 2013

They don't need to arrest everybody. They just need to put a few heads on sticks and the rest of the public comes into compliance.

But in that case, they are pursuing a property right they are entitled to under the law, and they make that pursuit in plain sight.

What is different about the government is that when Google accumulates terabytes on us, the result may be an unwanted ad showing up on our cell phone. When the government does it, they can lock you up for the rest of your life.

We must hold the government to a different standard from private companies.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
19. Actually....
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:32 AM
Jun 2013

... the record industry lost that war. The best they could do was strike deals with companies like Rhapsody, iTunes, and Spotify. I can now download hundreds of complete albums for $10 per month. It's legal and nearly free.

Horse with no Name

(33,956 posts)
6. I have to wonder if all of the "changes" in privacy that were made to Facebook
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:19 AM
Jun 2013

over the last year is to make it easier for the Government to do this?

UTUSN

(70,497 posts)
8. Here's MrScorpio's excellent explanation:
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:21 AM
Jun 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989858

*************QUOTE*************

the (SNOWDEN) man's [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]an idiot[/FONT]. Pure and simple. However, the mere fact [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]that he received a security clearance[/FONT] and a job at a big time contractor[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] is highly problematic[/FONT], in that it's a clear demonstration that the system is so hopelessly bloated that just about [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] any idiot can become part of it[/FONT]. There are just too many people with security clearances out there.

Here's a man (GREENWALD) who took a [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]doofus who was shocked about common knowledge[/FONT] in the field of which he was supposed to be working and[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]sen-sen-sation-sationalized[/FONT] (echo) it because sensationalizing things is his stock and trade. Especially, if it's anything [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]to make the present administration look bad[/FONT].

Our Constitutional rights are important. The issue, unfortunately, is that a lot of people are using [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] 18th Century standards[/FONT] to a problem that's as old as the 20th Century. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Your rights were destroyed even before most of us were born[/FONT]. This is an extension of the [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]1947 National Security Act[/FONT] and has been tweaked and bloated ever since.

[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]repealing that god-damned PATRIOT Act[/FONT]. The only people for whom that thing is doing any good are the contractors who are cashing in big time because of it, and the politicians whose careers depend upon getting the American people to cheer them on while they slip the contractors a nice, friendly hand-job under the table while they're having their lobster bisque and arugula.

Better yet, stop listening to [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]the fools in the media[/FONT] who should know better than to sacrifice a rube or two in order to try [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] getting everyone to go straight into panic mode. If it bleeds, it leads, Baby[/FONT]. Even if they have make shit up,

[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]sensationalize common knowledge[/FONT] and use it to troll whomever mercilessly, you need to fucking chill.

*************UNQUOTE
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
15. That seems to answer some different questions
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:29 AM
Jun 2013

Cui bono?

and

Is this even effective?

My question is neither. The issue, as I see it is that we are accumulating a vast database, and at the same time abusing the whole system of classified secrecy, not of necessity, but to hide really corrupt practices. And in order to continue expanding the dossier in secrecy, it is necessary to give MILLIONS of people security clearance. And when you do that, you have effectively ensured that out of that million, there will emerge an element that finds it irresistible not to use this information for evil purposes.

It is the formula that has existed with ALL police states, but this one is on steroids, it seems.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
33. I am not familiar with your opinions on this issue. Just trying to see where you stand.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:51 AM
Jun 2013

I totally agree.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
9. However, here we all are
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:22 AM
Jun 2013

"The public was intimidated -- afraid even to speak anywhere they might be overheard."

However, here we all are-- without intimidation, posting anything and anywhere we might be overheard. From abject criticisms of the government to melodramatic pronouncements that revolution is soon to follow; from less-than-objective "analyses" of the current imbroglio to far-fling what-if scenarios... all posted without fear or concern that any one poster will be whisked away against their will in the dark of night, not to be heard from until a fiver or a tenner is completed in a work-camp.

As concerned as I myself may be with these brand new, seven year old revelations, I have yet to see any objective evidence which compels me to believe that X unequivocally follows Y; and really, anything beyond that is (at best) prognostication or (at worst) prophecy.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
13. It could be the foundation for the biggest freedom state in history
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:27 AM
Jun 2013

Just turn all of NSA's stuff over to Google so everyone would have access to everything.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
17. The difference is that the worst thing Google has figured out to do
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jun 2013

is irritate us with unwanted ads.

The government, on the other hand, has the means to ruin -- or end -- lives.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
22. You missed the point -- if everyone knew everything, government would loose much of its power
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:36 AM
Jun 2013

If everyone knew that the majority of the rest of the population had/were smoking marijuana, the government would be unable to keep it illegal.

If everyone knew of all the important people who were in same sex relations, laws against homsexuality would have fallen long ago.

Everyone speeds, the majority chisel on their taxes, etc. So get rid of any law that 50% of the people don't want as indicated by their internet expressions and/or behavior. Stop letting a bunch of stuffed shirts in statehouses dominate us.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
27. I don't think it would be a good idea
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:41 AM
Jun 2013

for Google to have access to every call placed in the USA, and the ability to hook that up with IRS records, and DNS databases, and social security records, and medical records.

Sorry, but no thanks.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
14. Even Turley in 2011 did not quite say how bad it is
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:29 AM
Jun 2013

---it took an NSA whistle blower to indicate that our worst fears may very well be true.


"The Demon is Dead; So Are Many of Our Rights"


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-02-Reflect-on-lost-civil-liberties_n.htm

Excellent article by Jonathan Turley
--legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism.
(More at link)

-------------
"The death of Osama bin Laden has left the United States with a type of morning-after effect. For 10 years, an ever-expanding war on terror has been defined by one central dark figure: Osama bin Laden. It is perhaps not surprising that in a celebrity-driven society, even our wars seemed personality driven. For many, Iraq was about Saddam Hussein. Afghanistan was about Osama bin Laden. With both of these defining figures gone, however, it is time to take account of what has been lost, and what has been gained.

For civil libertarians, the legacy of bin Laden is most troubling because it shows how the greatest injuries from terror are often self-inflicted. Bin Laden's twisted notion of success was not the bringing down of two buildings in New York or the partial destruction of the Pentagon. It was how the response to those attacks by the United States resulted in our abandonment of core principles and values in the "war on terror." Many of the most lasting impacts of this ill-defined war were felt domestically, not internationally.

(snip)
If bin Laden wanted to change America, he succeeded. Bush officials were quick to claim that our laws and even our Constitution made us vulnerable to attack — even though later investigations showed that the attacks could have been prevented under existing laws. Despite the negligence of agencies such as the FBI and CIA in allowing the attacks, those same agencies were given unprecedented power and budgets in the aftermath of 9/11.

(snip)
The death of bin Laden is not the marker of an end of a period but a reminder that there is no end to this period. For those who have long wanted expansion of presidential powers and the limitation of constitutional rights, bin Laden gave them an irresistible opportunity to reshape this country — and the expectations of our citizens. We now accept thousands of security cameras in public places, intrusive physical searches and expanding police powers as the new reality of American life. The privacy that once defined this nation is now viewed as a quaint, if not naive, concept. Police power works like the release of gas in a closed space: expand the space and the gas fills it. It is rare in history to see ground lost in civil liberties be regained through concessions of power by the government. Our terrorism laws have transcended bin Laden and even 9/11. They have become the status quo. That is the greatest tragedy of bin Laden's legacy — not what he did to us, but what we have done to ourselves.

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University
-------
You might also be interested in:
Maytag Maxima XL MED7000AG Dryer Review (Washer Dryer Info)
How to Get the Most Out of Your Sports Photos (Digital Camera Info)
Artist-Engineer Prints 3D Sculptures from 2D Photographs (Digital Camera Info)
Specialty Dryer Dehydrates Bras with Infrared (Washer Dryer Info)

Selected for you by a sponsor:
Test Reveals A Bias Against Lung Cancer by Both Patients and Doctors (Genentech)

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
42. Some folks would like us to think it's no big deal because Obama is the Prez
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 12:38 PM
Jun 2013

Of course if a republican wins the next election then it will become BAD and EVIL.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
44. That's EXACTLY why we should be concerned.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 01:43 PM
Jun 2013

Let's say you are part of the permanent authority class that generally ends up at the controls no matter which of the two parties supplies the President. And let's say you wanted to make a major push to get this police state solidly in place, say, before the Latinos take over (this class is not worried much about the Muslims, but the shifting demographics toward Latino voters scare the shit out of them.)

Given that premise, would you make more progress with a President Obama or a President Romney/McCain?

Before the 2008 election, I think most of us would have said obviously it would be easier to extend the police state with McCain or Romney in the White House.

But think again. Those guys would have been opposed vigorously every step of the way. Yes, they would keep pushing, but this would have become the defining issue of our time.

OTOH, now we have seen that Obama won't oppose any of this. Not one little thing. And by having Obama in their camp, the authority class would have a clear shot because, as we have seen here at DU, there are a whole lot of people who are willing to support anything and everything Obama does, no matter what it is. I never dreamed there would be so many Obama apologists.

Three are plenty of other reasons why it is a good thing we are not saluting president Romney today, but sadly, this is not one of them.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Would somebody please exp...