[cryptowonderdruginvogue]

The government can monitor your phone calls and can read your e-mails and open your snail mail.

The government can access records of your large financial transactions, such as buying a house.

Law enforcement officers can bust into your home when you're not there, riffle through your belongings, plant a recording device on your computer, and leave without notifying you for at least thirty days -- and maybe a lot more.

You no longer have the right to protest where the president or vice president can see you, or at major public events when they aren't even present.

Law enforcement officers can now monitor you in public if you are merely exercising your political rights.

They can infiltrate your political organizations.

And they can keep track of you at your place of worship. The government can find out from bookstores and libraries the material you've been reading, and the bookstore owner and the librarian can't talk about it, except to their lawyers, for a whole year -- or more.

The government can hold you in preventive detention for months on end as a "material witness."

If you're not a citizen the government can deport you on a technicality or for mere political association.

If you're not a citizen the government can label you an "enemy combatant" and send you to secret prisons around the world, where you may never see the light of day again -- much less a lawyer or a judge. And even if you are a citizen, the government can label you an enemy combatant and hold you in solitary confinement here in the United States.

Under George W. Bush's interpretation of the president's powers during the so-called war on terror he can do just about whatever he wants. He cites the Authorization for Use of Military Force bill, which Congress passed on September 18, 2001, as the justification for this enormous leeway.

[pbradley]

Yay, another liberal rant.

*takes a nap*

[demonrail666]

Reading that, I'd say that you probably are.

[nature scene]

pretty much yes. there's nothing liberal about it pbradley. I'm a libertarian and I'm worried. I know plenty of real conservatives that don't like what's going on.

by the way, crypto, didn't you support Bush before? What's up?

[SynthethicalY]

Crypto Why are you being a Liberal, Where is Bush is the man. Or where we owned by you?

[Dead-Air]

I voted no, but it's of course a matter of degrees. There are some cities in America where police control and monitoring is significantly more severe than others, and there are even neighborhoods within given cities where it is more severe.

I voted no, because, I still think it could get a lot worse. Technology is making that much more possible, though it also makes it quite a bit easier for people to monitor the police. Rodney King was taped being beat with a bulky camcorder, today we're getting to the point where citizens can carry something so small that most cops won't even know they're being videoed. In a true police state cellphone cameras would be illegal.

Which is not to say that I don't think that rights are eroding, which has nothing to do with traditional "liberal vs. conservative" labels. Waco TX saw U.S. citizens killed by the ATF (a police, not military organization) using tanks with flame throwers over surprisingly little during the reign of a supposedly "liberal Democrat" who may get to be the first male First Lady soon. But are things really worse today than they were in 1970 when the National Guard opened fire on college students for protesting? I'm really not sure of that. And for "democracies" under survelience, the Brits have got us beat hands down these days, albeit a bit more overtly.

[ThePits]

The UK has more surveillance cameras per head of population than any other country in the world. The constant reason given is to help solve crimes. Yet only 3% of all recorded crime in the UK results in a conviction. A couple of years ago the Proceeds Of Crime Act (POCA) was passed. This means the police can go through your life, make an inventory of everything you own including clothing, and if you cannot explain to their satisfaction where you got the money to buy it they can seize it. You are not allowed a solicitor during the interview, you cannot refuse to answer questions. The yard stick by which your answers are judged is not the criminal one of "beyond reasonable doubt" its "on the balance of probability". To seize your goods they dont even need to convict you. If that isnt heading towards a police state I dont know what is.

[jon boy]

i am glad the 56 day without charge rule looks like it will be scrapped.

[sonicl]

LONDON (Reuters) - Terrorism suspects held under virtual house arrest in Britain suffer "Kafkaesque" treatment in special courts that review secret evidence against them, a committee of legislators said on Monday.

The committee's report said "no right-minded person" would think the suspects had a fair hearing when they often had no idea of the case against them. It likened the system to the Star Chamber, a secretive and oppressive English court abolished in 1641.

"This is a process that is offensive both to the basic principles of natural justice as we know it and to British ideas of fair play," said Andrew Dinsmore, chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The law allows suspects who cannot be prosecuted in the courts to be held under a loose form of house arrest known as a "control order". These are scrutinised in special tribunals.

The orders are used in cases where authorities have collected evidence using techniques such as phone taps that are not admissible in the courts. They can also be used when foreign nationals suspected of terrorism cannot be deported because of the risk of torture in their home country.

Suspects are represented by lawyers who are given security clearance to see secret evidence from the intelligence services. The lawyers are not allowed to discuss the case with the suspect. The committee said this put a suspect at the "enormous disadvantage of not knowing what is alleged against him".

"After listening to the evidence of the Special Advocates, we found it hard not to reach for well-worn descriptions of it as Kafkaesque or like the Star Chamber," the committee said.

The lawmakers said the standard of proof required in the hearings was low. The courts tend to "defer very readily" to assessments made by the security services.

The committee also poured cold water on Prime Minister Gordon Brown's proposal to give police more time to question suspects before they must charge them.

His predecessor Tony Blair suffered his first defeat in the House of Commons two years ago when he attempted to extend the limit in the wake of the July 7, 2005, London bombings that killed 52 commuters. Brown said this week that the limit needed to be extended because plots were growing increasingly complicated.

The committee said there was no proof that detectives needed extra time to gather evidence before charges were brought. "As far as we've heard, there has not yet been a case where 28 days was inadequate," Dinsmore said.

A Home Office (interior ministry) spokesman said the department welcomed the report and would consider the findings. "The system of control orders balances the need to protect sensitive material, while according the individual a substantial amount of procedural justice," he said.

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by jon boy

i am glad the 56 day without charge rule looks like it will be scrapped.

Hmm, not quite. A Commons committee has concluded that this rule in not necessary. However, I reckon the Clunking Fist will still want to push this through Parliament, for "national security" reasons. Let's see what G Brown does when he returns from his talking-to from G Bush.

[jon boy]

i predict a surge in false convictions and miscarages of justice.

[ZEROpumpkins]

Yeah man, right on.

[ThePits]

I think where things go wrong are when the human rights of the minority of people who either sail close to the edge of illegal or terrorist activity override the human rights of the majority of people who have a right to live without the fear of terrorisim or crime

Where politicians consistently fail is in striking a balance between the two

What also clouds the issue is the cynical use by politicians of exaggerating the threat of crime or terrorism to make themselves more electable

The promise of ever more draconian laws and punishments for lawbreakers, how often have we heard those pre election?

This kind of jingoism means that in most countries the public really doesnt have a true picture of the threat to them of any form of crime, terrorism included

By the same token, human rights organisations, lawyers and committees can hardly be called impartial either

Without perceived breaches of human rights, their raison d'etre goes out the window too

Who can envsage a human rights committee sitting for months and coming to the conclusion that no human rights were under threat or breached?

The public would soon start wondering what they hell they were being paid for

One possible solution to the mess would be to let the judiciary recommend what laws and changes to laws were necessary

This obviously only works in a system where judges are not appointed politically

But at least the human rights of the majority might get a look in alongside the human rights of the minority for a change

I for one believe I have a human right not to be blown up, robbed or assaulted

[tesla69]

Well just ask yourself are laws being made to make things easier for the police or to protect the civil rights of the civilians. I don't think anyone could argue things are being made more difficult for the police. And as for the person above (Deadair I think) who voted no because things could get worse, at what point do you think its a police state? (and I guess I have to refer to the US here) Right now Bush (or his mysterious pedophallocarcy) can decide you're an enemy of the state or enemy combatant or whatever designation he decided to use that day and then you vanish off the face of the earth, you might end up in a rape campe in the US 9prison) or some concentration camp in Cuba or Iraq or Poland (that one poster doesn't believe in because ABCIA hasn't done any puff pieces on it). So far, he hasn't done this to any white people, so it doesn't matter. But he/they will.

What WILL make it a police state? Hmm, the cops can pick you up and disappear you, but thats ok by your criteria. Maybe if it was white college educated people then it would matter? Or maybe it requires 100,000 vanished people? If the govt just summarily executes you in a death camp will that be sufficient criteria that this is a police state? OR do we all have to be turned out of our homes while the army searches them and the local leaders pick out their favorite girls to rape?

I'm not sure because the MIND CONTROL SATELLITE GRID IS ON FULL BLAST!

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by nature scene

pretty much yes. there's nothing liberal about it pbradley. I'm a libertarian and I'm worried. I know plenty of real conservatives that don't like what's going on.

Find another long winded rant "exposing" the truth.

I live in San Francisco.

I get tired of couch politicians and revolutionaries.

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by tesla69

Well just ask yourself are laws being made to make things easier for the police or to protect the civil rights of the civilians. I don't think anyone could argue things are being made more difficult for the police. And as for the person above (Deadair I think) who voted no because things could get worse, at what point do you think its a police state? (and I guess I have to refer to the US here) Right now Bush (or his mysterious pedophallocarcy) can decide you're an enemy of the state or enemy combatant or whatever designation he decided to use that day and then you vanish off the face of the earth, you might end up in a rape campe in the US 9prison) or some concentration camp in Cuba or Iraq or Poland (that one poster doesn't believe in because ABCIA hasn't done any puff pieces on it). So far, he hasn't done this to any white people, so it doesn't matter. But he/they will.

What WILL make it a police state? Hmm, the cops can pick you up and disappear you, but thats ok by your criteria. Maybe if it was white college educated people then it would matter? Or maybe it requires 100,000 vanished people? If the govt just summarily executes you in a death camp will that be sufficient criteria that this is a police state? OR do we all have to be turned out of our homes while the army searches them and the local leaders pick out their favorite girls to rape?

I'm not sure because the MIND CONTROL SATELLITE GRID IS ON FULL BLAST!

Why bring race into this?

I thought this thread was about are we living in a police state.........

[Sheriff Rhys Chatham]

I vote no.
They can't do any thing to you if you don't let them.
I stand by my freedom.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by ThePits

Why bring race into this?

I thought this thread was about are we living in a police state.........

People of color in the U.S. have lived under martial law for many years. only now the Surveillance State is waving its mighty eye onto everyone else.

But goddamn people in the US are getting so stupid, rude and brutal a police state may be needed just to keep some semblance of society going. Somewhere someone said it was ok to change your baby's dirty diapers on your table in a restaurant full of diners. Is it just me or do you not change your baby's dirty diapers in the middle of the dining table? But people do this all the time these days. Its always easier and more profitable to go after morality laws than corruption. Nab the kids smoking pot and ruin their lives is much safer than busting some corrupt politicians who have access to your credit records etc. Who do you go to if the feds shut off your pensions and seal you bank accounts. Those people who get you off the no fly list? (soon to include the no work list)

[Disgruntled Youth]

Fyah buhn & Chant down babylon!!! we are living in the new world order.

[Kallisti23chaos]

absolutely