How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police state


PDA






yonderway
December 26, 2005, 10:37 AM
Brought to you by our friends at the John Birch Society:

How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police state
by Thomas R. Eddlem
December 23, 2005

Tyrannical police states have certain universal characteristics. They spy on their own citizens (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm), kidnap people at will (http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,1514376,00.html), and imprison them without bothering to charge them with crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi) or even give them a trial by jury (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772_pf.html). Police states imprison innocent people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html), again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476_pf.html) and again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar) and again (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1664612,00.html). And they declare kidnapped victims non-persons (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/12728630.htm) and torture (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866) or kill them (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/17/220434.shtml) at will.

How do police states get away with it? From Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree) to the present (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051216-7.html), totalitarians say that we must give up our rights and freedoms because it’s the only way for law enforcement to have the tools to protect us from catastrophic terrorist incidents. Of course, that’s the opposite course advocated by America’s Founding Fathers, like Benjamin Franklin, who counseled: “They that would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

Now, I ask you: What do any of these things have to do with America today?

If you enjoyed reading about "How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police state" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fly320s
December 26, 2005, 01:34 PM
I think Standing Wolf will handle this one.

SW, the floor is yours.

cropcirclewalker
December 26, 2005, 01:44 PM
'Bout the only thing I can think of that he didn't mention would be that a police state stifles dissent. No free speech.

Here we are dissenting. There may be hope.

If only we could get someone to listen. :(

R.H. Lee
December 26, 2005, 01:54 PM
Hissyfit hyperbole. The U.S. is a looooonnng way from a 'police state'.

1911 guy
December 26, 2005, 01:57 PM
We are a long way from a police state. We are, however, on a steady march in that direction.

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2005, 01:58 PM
The U.S. is a looooonnng way from a 'police state'.

I agree, but should be wait until we are a police state before we try to reverse what we see happening?

joab
December 26, 2005, 02:05 PM
They spy on their own citizens, kidnap people at will, and imprison them without bothering to charge them with crimes or even give them a trial by jury. Police states imprison innocent people, again and again and again. And they declare kidnapped victims non-persons and torture or kill them at will.They arrest reporters critical of the regime and close the non state owned newspapers down

AZRickD
December 26, 2005, 03:05 PM
From Hitler to the present, totalitarians say that we must give up our rights and freedoms

That should read, "From Lincoln to the present..."

Rick

MikeIsaj
December 26, 2005, 03:11 PM
How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police stateThe sign says "Welcome To New Jersey."

dfaugh
December 26, 2005, 03:54 PM
We are a long way from a police state. We are, however, on a steady march in that direction.

I don't think we're a LONG way frpm a police state...Maybe a "medium" way...But its getting closer every day....

I, for one, am getting truly scared at the way things are going....

nfl1990
December 26, 2005, 04:01 PM
Quote:
How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police state
The sign says "Welcome To New Jersey."

+1

rick_reno
December 26, 2005, 04:03 PM
Sure - some of those things mentioned have happened to a couple of people - big deal - they deserved it.

TallPine
December 26, 2005, 04:07 PM
Compared to the colonial era and years following the American secession from England - when a single constable would typically be the only "LEO" for a district and he depended on private citizens for help in apprehending criminals - we have probably been in a "police state" (at least in the major cities) for over a hundred years now.

However, so far it is only somewhat "tyrannical" - but seeming to get more so all the time. :uhoh:

jnojr
December 26, 2005, 04:26 PM
The sign says "Welcome To New Jersey."

More like "California State Line". New Jersey doesn't have state border checkpoints... CA does.

Standing Wolf
December 26, 2005, 10:49 PM
I think Standing Wolf will handle this one.

Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen!

Well, yeah, but we're not a police state: lawyers are writing all these new laws, so there couldn't be anything unconstitutional in them.

Geno
December 26, 2005, 11:04 PM
No, we're not a police state, we're a police country. You think it's bad now, just wait 20 years. You'll look back and remember when you had guns in your houses, then recall how 10 years back they made you "register" them, then required that you store them in "hunting clubs", then, one day they all disappeared. The government needed the steel to make military weapons...but like in the latest land grab, the government did pay you for them...the going rate of steel, what $2.00 a ton?! Think it couldn't happen? Australia...England...Brasil...etc., etc. We just let them grimmy pups keep violating us one civil RIGHT at a time. Going, going...

Doc2005 :evil:

MikeIsaj
December 26, 2005, 11:15 PM
More like "California State Line". New Jersey doesn't have state border checkpoints... CA does.Yeah but, those are just agriculture checks and they're for your own good right?

And don't forget the border patrol checkpoint on I-5, 50 miles north of the border.

IndianaDean
December 26, 2005, 11:57 PM
The sign says "Welcome To New Jersey."

I was going to make a sm*rt*ss statement, you beat me to it! :evil:

mountainclmbr
December 27, 2005, 12:01 AM
Hillary will save us from the police state. She hates the police because of the Whitewater embezzlement investigation, the disclosure of the Dems grab of FBI background check files on Republicans, the Tyson futures scandal where the world's smartest woman made baskets of cash and her friend went to prison, the investigation of IRS (her best friend from college was appointed to head IRS) political audits on Clinton enemies, the embarrasing investigations of unauthorized doinking by Commander in Chief-Bill, the perjury, the pardons of felons for Clinton Cash. Hillary will make health care, and everything else free so we won't need guns to protect anything...it will be free. We will just have to give up some things to gain utopia. Just ignore the big holes in the ground, they will be covered soon and with enough dirt to prevent the smell of decaying flesh. And 150 million will soon be a distant memory on our way to the next socialist utopia.

Herself
December 27, 2005, 12:52 AM
...When the very right-wing, very patriotic John Birch Society is worried at a time when Republicans hold Congress and the Presidency, we'd all better take a look. They would not raise the question idly.

Even if you trust President Bush's adminstration with all the sweeping powers they have been handed, will you trust his successors? No one party has a lock on the presidency. Picture Hillary with the power to declare citizens "enemy combatants" and detain them forever...do you really want that?

--Herself

JohnKSa
December 27, 2005, 01:35 AM
Sure - some of those things mentioned have happened to a couple of people - big deal - they deserved it.That's the way it always BEGINS.

And that's how the support is garnered and maintained. "Sure, it's infringement, but look at the people affected--they DESERVED it."

The zealous protection of rights always means that some people who deserve to be punished, instead go free. However, most agree that it is far more abhorrent to punish those who should go free.

ka50
December 27, 2005, 01:59 AM
With presidents like Dubya, the police state is coming at you faster than you think. We are already being spied upon, citizens imprisoned without being charged with a crime and our liberties are traded for "security". What's next?

Citizens imprisoned without being charged with a crime = 1860.
Spied upon by your own government = pretty much every administration since FDR at a minimum

Not saying that there isn't any cause for alarm... simply that these aren't new things. Government will always take exactlly as much power as its citizens allow it to take. The nice thing about democracies and republics is that citizens can take back that power by participating at the ballot box. This method is both cheaper and easier than the more traditional methods throughout history if only people will use it instead of sit bac and complain.

rick_reno
December 27, 2005, 04:14 AM
I'm curious, could a police state exist and not be trrannical? I've worked in Singapore - I always described it as a benevolent police state - which I actually found pretty nice. I don't believe they were grabbing citizens and holding them for extended periods of time without charges, but I'm pretty sure they were doing everything else on your "tyrannical police state" list.

GunnySkox
December 27, 2005, 05:09 AM
I'm curious, could a police state exist and not be trrannical? I've worked in Singapore - I always described it as a benevolent police state - which I actually found pretty nice. I don't believe they were grabbing citizens and holding them for extended periods of time without charges, but I'm pretty sure they were doing everything else on your "tyrannical police state" list.

I think the problem that most of "us" have with that is that it's a terribly thin line to walk. A place like that just barely teeters on the toetips of a couple of officials who, if corrupted, or if less than upright and honorable, could fairly handily toss the whole thang right into the tyranny pot. So many of "us" prefer a system which, in its construction, plants many hurdles for the government to hop on the way toward tyranny (not the least of which would be an armed, wary populace).

~GnSx

Michigander
December 27, 2005, 07:38 AM
... all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

-- excerpted from The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

Lobotomy Boy
December 27, 2005, 10:48 AM
The nice thing about democracies and republics is that citizens can take back that power by participating at the ballot box. This method is both cheaper and easier than the more traditional methods throughout history if only people will use it instead of sit bac and complain.


This assumes that we have a legitimate candidate to vote for. In this last election we had a choice between Bush and Kerry. To me that was no choice at all. I couldn't in good conscience vote for either one of them. If I had been forced to, I believe I would have voted for Kerry because I had already come to the conclusion that Bush was a dangerous despot. But I couldn't vote for Kerry so I voted for Badnarik. In hindsight it appears that perhaps I should have selected what I truly believe was the lesser of two evils.

Michigander
December 27, 2005, 11:38 AM
Badnarik is as far LEFT as Bush is far RIGHT.

Not hardly in either case!

72Rover
December 27, 2005, 11:58 AM
This assumes that we have a legitimate candidate to vote for. In this last election we had a choice between Bush and Kerry.... In hindsight it appears that perhaps I should have selected what I truly believe was the lesser of two evils.

Sadly, all too true....:(

I have voted in every election since '72 (Soon after the '68 election, the voting age was dropped to 18, so I got gyped out of one.) In all those elections, I have only voted FOR an individual once. (John Anderson in '80.) Every other vote has been against one chap and for lesser of two perceived evils.

I can remember campaigning for Barry Goldwater, arguable the 'father' of the modern, neo-con movement. If he was around today, he'd be a *democrat*....

Cheers

Zundfolge
December 27, 2005, 12:16 PM
Badnarik is as far LEFT as Bush is far RIGHT.

One way we are easily controlled is with simple Left vs. Right political thinking.

The big lie is that there are only two sides of every issue, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, Us vs. Them.

Looking at politics two dimensionally is as deadly as looking at air to air combat two dimensionally.


Politics is at least three dimensional ... http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

spartacus2002
December 27, 2005, 01:55 PM
One way we are easily controlled is with simple Left vs. Right political thinking.

The big lie is that there are only two sides of every issue, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, Us vs. Them.

Looking at politics two dimensionally is as deadly as looking at air to air combat two dimensionally.



True. Instead of the Ds and Rs being on either end of a rope playing tug-of-war, in actuality they are holding hands and merrily skipping together towards a police state.

Herself
December 27, 2005, 01:58 PM
Badnarik is as far LEFT as Bush is far RIGHT.

Not hardly in either case!

Portait of a supposed hardly-leftwinger:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle279-20040711.html

Now don't you wish you'd voted for him? (Maybe you don't. That's okay. Vote for the candidate who best suits you).

--Herself

yonderway
December 27, 2005, 02:20 PM
This assumes that we have a legitimate candidate to vote for. In this last election we had a choice between Bush and Kerry.

Untrue. There were about 5 or 6 candidates for president on my ballot.

JohnKSa
December 27, 2005, 05:43 PM
There were about 5 or 6 candidates for president on my ballot.You can also write in anyone you want to--but they won't win either. There have been only two REAL presidential candidates in every race so far in your lifetime and that will almost certainly hold true for the rest of your lifetime as well.

rock jock
December 27, 2005, 05:44 PM
I love these posts that mention Badnarik. I have heard him speak and the guy is a loon.

On topic, I thin it depends on your POV. Texas is not nearly a police state, but **********..............................

Lobotomy Boy
December 27, 2005, 08:09 PM
One way we are easily controlled is with simple Left vs. Right political thinking.

The big lie is that there are only two sides of every issue, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, Us vs. Them.

Looking at politics two dimensionally is as deadly as looking at air to air combat two dimensionally.


I've long maintained that if there is a clear division, it's not between liberal and conservative but between liberty and tyranny. In the past couple of weeks it's becoming increasingly clear which side of that divide people are coming down on.

TallPine
December 27, 2005, 08:28 PM
I love these posts that mention Badnarik. I have heard him speak and the guy is a loon.
And that makes him different from Kerry/Bush how....?

:p

Attala_County
December 28, 2005, 02:59 AM
I would say about 6-20 yrs. till we have a police state.:barf:

Michigander
December 28, 2005, 08:24 AM
My comment about Badnarik being as left as Bush was right was a tongue-in-cheek reply to a previous post (that has apparently since been deleted or revised) in which someone said Badnarik was "so far left."

As for us vs. them, that is exactly what it is. Anyone who doesn't see that has their head in the sand. It is us, the people who believe in the Constitution vs. them, primarily in the government, and the ignorant masses who keep re-electing that government, who either despise, ignore, or are ignorant of the Constitution.

The sad part is, there are way too many of "us" who also fall into the category of "masses who keep re-electing that government."

joab
December 28, 2005, 08:29 AM
Portait of a supposed hardly-leftwinger:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/bugman/John_Kerry_Gun.jpg
Now don't you wish you'd voted for him?

Henry Bowman
December 28, 2005, 12:46 PM
I've long maintained that if there is a clear division, it's not between liberal and conservative but between liberty and tyranny. And that often correlates to rural vs. urban. In a democracy, the urban numbers dominate and control. In a republic, the inalienable rights of a minority are protected. But that assumes that the Constitution is respected and followed.

R.H. Lee
December 28, 2005, 12:54 PM
Exactly. A democracy is tyranny of the majority; it's like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. A Constitutional Republic OTOH is governed by the rule of law and inherent individual rights that cannot be compromised on the whim of whatever majority prevails at any given time.

Otherguy Overby
December 28, 2005, 01:54 PM
I've a problem. I can't for the life of me see/think George Bush is right wing. He's pretty far left of center and the only people to the left of bush are the majority of the democratic party and the moon bats. Much of the Republican party is well to the right of Bush. Sheesh, Zell Miller is a light year to the right of Bush and he's my opinion of middle of the road.

In this day and age it seems the voting public mostly wants commie handouts and feel good policy which tends to rule out their voting for anything coming from the true right. They just can't say no to spending someone else's money.

If someone wants government programs and handouts, they just want someone else (armed government) to pick your pockets. It's for the children...

[/end rant]

veloce851
December 29, 2005, 11:56 AM
More like "California State Line". New Jersey doesn't have state border checkpoints... CA does.
I'm curious where this checkpoint is at, and how old it is.
Google Earth varies on the age of image.

Old Dog
December 29, 2005, 12:04 PM
I'm curious where this checkpoint is at, and how old it is.I think the poster was referring to the "Agricultural Inspection Stations" one must pass through after entering California from the Oregon, Nevada and Arizona state lines ... Only other "checkpoint" I know of (besides the border crossing stations to Mexico) is the Border Patrol check station at San Onofre on I-5 northbound ...

Herself
December 29, 2005, 08:54 PM
(photo of John Kerry queasily clutching a fancy shotgun omitted for brevity)
Let's see: shotgun snob, whose quoted pronouncements on hunting make it clear that he doesn't have even Clue One about the subject, let alone self-defense vs. a Texan only too happy to be photgraphed lugging around an Evil Black Gun or a nice, concealable handgun. Not really the same, is it?

Kerry was geeking for votes. If there had been a biting-the-heads-off-chickens segment of the electoratre he needed to win over, he would have tried that, too.

Badnarik, like him or loathe him, is an actual gun guy. He shoots. He likes guns. He understands the natural right to self defense. There are plenty of areas where J. Average HighRoader might not agree with him (and why should you?) but on guns, he actually gets it.

--Herself

joab
December 29, 2005, 11:27 PM
Let's see: shotgun snob, whose quoted pronouncements on hunting make it clear that he doesn't have even Clue One about the subject, let alone self-defense vs. a Texan only too happy to be photgraphed lugging around an Evil Black Gun or a nice, concealable handgun. Not really the same, is it?Texans lie just like blue bloods do, whether they're mugging for the camera with a shotgun or a handgun

The day my vote is swayed by a publicity photo for any candidate, I'll quit voting

Walter
December 30, 2005, 12:52 AM
How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police state

Try crossing our international border, north or south, with a legally
owned handgun. You will see the workings of a "tyrannical police
state" up close and personal.
My opinion.

Walter

david_the_greek
December 30, 2005, 01:15 AM
wow I was really begining to get worried that I was the only one in this country who was concerned. I don't know what I would do if i didn't have this site to vent/observe on. Plus its helping me get my very first self bought pistol. Such a service to the people and it asks for nothing in return. I wish everything was this good

oldfart
December 30, 2005, 06:27 PM
How to tell if we're living in a police state, eh?

Well, for starters, very few of us would even realize it. Our 'frogs' would have been cooked so slowly we'd never even have noticed the increasingly higher temperatures. Still, some would notice and a few of them would try to do something about it. Of course they'd either be ridiculed, discredited or crushed long before they had a chance to draw an audience. Any who might have had their personal 'line in the sand' violated and then taken action in an attempt to correct that infringement would simply be eliminated and their reputations destroyed with "new information" about their personal lives. Charges of child molestation or racism are always good ways to turn people away from an erstwhile leader and justify his/her death.

But, supposing we were in a position to see things objectively, what should we look for?

The weather has been really crummy lately and I seem to have screwed up my back, so I was sitting around reading today. I had a copy of "Revolt in 2100," by Robert Heinlein on the shelf, so I picked it up. For those of you who may not have read it, the story concerns a revolution against a religious tyranny. Heinlein, a pretty smart guy, wrote "...secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy . . . censorship. When any government, or any Church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything-- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Never mind all the people who've been killed amid charges they had sex with children or they were white supremacists or drug dealers-- we've heard all those stories before. Instead, consider secret courts that can issue secret warrants for secret searches. Consider secret "requests" for medical records, e-mail records, even library records and the fact that those who have been forced to fill those "requests" are forbidden to tell the person who is the object of the inquiry.

All in the name of security... a noble, dare I say a "holy" cause?

Not only is our frog cooked but I think our goose is too.

Old Dog
December 30, 2005, 06:34 PM
Instead, consider secret courts that can issue secret warrants for secret searches. Consider secret "requests" for medical records, e-mail records, even library records and the fact that those who have been forced to fill those "requests" are forbidden to tell the person who is the object of the inquiry.

In a real police state ... no one ever finds out that this sort of thing is being done, nor would every single media outlet and journalist in a police state be allowed to report on this happening. Nor would citizens be allowed to freely debate over the government's actions on an internet forum.

So, if you're trying to say WE are living in a tyrannical police state in the U.S., I say "nay."

oldfart
December 30, 2005, 06:52 PM
Not true, Will. Even in the most repressive police states people know what's going on, they just don't dare talk about it or try to do anything about it. In the worst days of Hitler's regime people knew the worst. The same was true when Stalin was in power. The disappearance or death of thousands of people can't really be completely hidden but if any discussion of it can lead to joining the group, few will elect to do so. Even Saddam managed to keep most of his subjects in line though they surely knew what was happening to their neighbors.

We're not that bad off... yet, but in each of those cases I just mentioned there was a period when things weren't too bad. We are traveling a dangerous road and it serves none of us when others simply refuse to see the pot-holes.

ajax
December 30, 2005, 07:05 PM
I think you <> who think you live in a police state should go live in N.Korea for a while.

cropcirclewalker
December 30, 2005, 07:16 PM
I don't know fer sure, but I betcha lots of the citizens of North Korea would be happy to live in Cuba.

What does that mean?

Otherguy Overby
December 30, 2005, 11:40 PM
I don't know fer sure, but I betcha lots of the citizens of North Korea would be happy to live in Cuba.

What does that mean?

The weather is warmer in Cuba... :)

Optical Serenity
December 31, 2005, 06:07 AM
I really dislike the term "police state." As a tyrannical state such as those described here should simply be called something else. Its not law enforcement that comes up with the idea to limit peoples' thoughts and actions, its the politicians. Just a misleading term...

Steve in PA
December 31, 2005, 10:29 AM
The sign says "Welcome To New Jersey."

LOL :p

Texfire
December 31, 2005, 03:02 PM
Sure - some of those things mentioned have happened to a couple of people - big deal - they deserved it.

First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemller

Sure we aren't there yet, but any erosion of the rule of law and loss of personal freedoms for an unspecified "security" should concern all champions of democracy.

Tex

yonderway
December 31, 2005, 04:24 PM
Sure we aren't there yet, but any erosion of the rule of law and loss of personal freedoms for an unspecified "security" should concern all champions of democracy.

What about champions of the republic, who are well aware of the very bad things that would befall us under a democracy?

vrwc
January 1, 2006, 06:40 PM
http://www.terrybressi.org/NewOrleans/photos/images/Assault3.jpg
http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/fig/d_fig07.jpg
http://crager.tripod.com/jackboot.jpg

This might help

vrwc
January 1, 2006, 06:41 PM
"I really dislike the term "police state." As a tyrannical state such as those described here should simply be called something else. Its not law enforcement that comes up with the idea to limit peoples' thoughts and actions, its the politicians. Just a misleading term..."

True but a good many enforce the ideas to limit peoples thoughts and actions without a second thought

DRZinn
January 2, 2006, 03:05 PM
I don't know fer sure, but I betcha lots of the citizens of North Korea would be happy to live in Cuba.

What does that mean?I don't know if this is the point you were trying to make, but it means there are varying degrees of "police state." North Korea is worse, than Cuba, which is far worse than the US. But it's only a question of degree.

If you enjoyed reading about "How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police state" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!