United States of the American Dictatorship? - Page 3

Imran Siddiqui · December 20, 2002, 23:09

Quote:

Read the text of the Patriot Act (and for that matter, read news articles of some of the consequences of it) and tell me the US respects rights.

Then give me proof that the Patriot Act has taken away our 'rights'.

When I see countries like the UK have a camera in every toilet (well, basically

), I don't see how the US is any less free than them.

muxec · December 21, 2002, 11:41

USA is democracy, and if USA security force USA citizen to be checked, they do this worrying about their lives.

Az · December 21, 2002, 12:53

Actually, Imran, I don't see how placing cameras in goverment buildings or public places is infringing on anyone's "rights".

Ming · December 21, 2002, 13:08

Big Brother is watching

Capt Dizle · December 21, 2002, 13:30

The US is a representative democracy and since our incumbant representatives are almost always re-elected because of the influence of monied interests you can fairly say something stinks but we are not a dictatorship.

Ming · December 21, 2002, 13:42

I think some people are also ignoring the fact that in many states, the Democrats are in power... and that the federal government is only part of the equation.

Individual States have many powers within their boundries that the Federal Government can't touch. So even the ever so weak argument that since one party controls three branches of the federal government, that makes the US a Dictatorship, is even more of joke, since they don't control all the states.

Thrawn05 · December 21, 2002, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by problem_child
Anyway the Electoral Colleges apparently do the actual votin, so its more like a Republic (where only an elite get to vote) then a democracy (where every common joes vote counts)

This was safe guard put in place so that people's emotions don't determine who is elected president. It also helps prevent Communists from gaining power.

Kramerman · December 21, 2002, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

What happened to the rights of those 1000+ Muslim-Ameircans who were arrested after September 11 and haven't been heard from since?

hmm... has this not happened before??? and aren't we still a republic???

I remeber a time when thousands of Japanese were forcfully detained... ah yes that happened 60 freaking years ago during WWII...

I remember a time when it was illegal to speak out against the federal government under punishment of imprisonment... ah, that was the Alien Sedition act of 1798... yup, it was all down hill from there

Please... America, in times of distress and war has often had to sacrifice civil liberties in order to promote security... you can call this a police state, Id like to call it common friggin sense. And everytime, everytime those liberties have been returned. sometimes automatically, and sometimes through protest and legal action, but either way the system works.

I could never see how the vast and extensive system of checks and balances hard-wired into out government could ever fail to the point of the government to turn into a dictatorship, under the nose of the citizenry that his been so afriad of such a government since its birth well more than 2 centuries ago.
Besides, we all know that we will always have the second amendment , as long as gun tote'n hicks like me are around!

.

Kman

Odin · December 21, 2002, 15:57

The U.S. Won't become a traditional dictatorship. It will become what I like to call a Corperate Oligarchy sine corperations have all the power. I see Japan turning into one of these too. I expect peolpe to come to there senses by 2030.

Odin · December 21, 2002, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05

This was safe guard put in place so that people's emotions don't determine who is elected president. It also helps prevent Communists from gaining power.

No, it gives the republicans the advantage since less populous states (Alaska, North Dakota, Utah, Nevada, etc.) usually go Republican.

I like the parlimentary system over the Congressional system since you vote for the party, not for individual people. Seats are apropreated by what % a party got.

In the U.S. I think a hypothetical parliment would be
35% Democrat
35% Republican
20% Green
5% Libertarian
5% Other

Another problem is that incumbents gerrymander districts.

JCG · December 21, 2002, 17:38

The U.S. is not a dictatorship, and it's still significantly far from becoming one. I believe theargument has already been made by others, so I'll leave it at that.

That doesn't mean that it's a "perfect" democracy or any such thing, far from it too, but it's not a dictatorship.

GeneralTacticus · December 21, 2002, 17:57

Quote:

Please... America, in times of distress and war has often had to sacrifice civil liberties in order to promote security... you can call this a police state, Id like to call it common friggin sense. And everytime, everytime those liberties have been returned. sometimes automatically, and sometimes through protest and legal action, but either way the system works.

So you call it common sense to lock up people based on their ethnicity/religion/whatever, with no charges being brought against them an dno indication whatsoever of what's happened to them, or even that they still exist? I'd have thought America was beyond that stage by now, and the fact that the media doesn't seem to mention them at all is rather disturbing...

Jaguar · December 21, 2002, 18:04

I'll use one of your quotes to answer another.

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
What happened to the rights of those 1000+ Muslim-Ameircans who were arrested after September 11 and haven't been heard from since?

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Source?

Ming · December 21, 2002, 18:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
In the U.S. I think a hypothetical parliment would be
35% Democrat
35% Republican
20% Green
5% Libertarian
5% Other

20 % Green....

What the heck are you smoking... can I have some too.

GeneralTacticus · December 21, 2002, 18:08

Quote:

I'll use one of your quotes to answer another.

My source is the Australian media after September 11. No-one has mentioned the issue since.

Jaguar · December 21, 2002, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

20 % Green....

What the heck are you smoking... can I have some too.

Well if we had a parliament, voting for the Green party would actually do something, so people would vote for them more often.

Jaguar · December 21, 2002, 18:11

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

My source is the Australian media after September 11. No-one has mentioned the issue since.

Might that suggest that the people have been released? Or that the Australian media was incorrect?

GeneralTacticus · December 21, 2002, 18:16

Quote:

Might that suggest that the people have been released?

Possible, but I wouldn't assume that, considering that I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

Quote:

Or that the Australian media was incorrect?

Again, possible, but if it hadn't actually happened, you'd thinkBush & Co. would be strongly denying it, to avoid the negative PR effect among Muslisms and people who value civil liberties, wouldn't you?

Sava · December 21, 2002, 18:22

I think Mel Gibson said it best in "The Patriot"

"Why trade 1 tyrant that's 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants that are 1 mile away..."

Jaguar · December 21, 2002, 18:24

I think that a lack of media coverage on an event means that it isn't contraversial. In the case of this news item, releasing the suspects a few days later is non-contraversial. Therefore, I believe the media would not report the release of the suspects. However, if the suspects were still jailed, the media would report it. Since we have heard nothing about it since the alleged arrests, I would assume that the people were released a few days later.

Sava · December 21, 2002, 18:27

there was another thread where we determined that there are only about 13% Republicans and 15 % dems based upon the stats from the last Presidential election.

GeneralTacticus · December 21, 2002, 18:28

As I recall, what was reported was that they had been arrested without charges, detained without a trial, and not released for as long as it actually appeared in the media. Considering that, I'd imagine that there would have been some coverage if they'd been released.

Jaguar · December 21, 2002, 18:33

Not necessarily. The media doesn't like to admit it when it's wrong.

GeneralTacticus · December 21, 2002, 18:36

Eh? Them being released wouldn't have proved the media wrong, unless it had said they weren't going to be released at all, which it didn't.

Ming · December 21, 2002, 18:36

When they do print a retraction, it appears on page 50, in small type

Sava · December 21, 2002, 18:40

The US is becoming a Police State (if it isn't already), but Ming's right... each bum at the top is gone in 4 years. You could argue that its just a revolving door... but the President's powers aren't nearly strong enough to be put in the "dictatorship" category. For instance, Bush couldn't come to my house and make me do push-ups... but if Saddam yells "drop and give me 20"... you can bet the Iraqis will do it.

GeneralTacticus · December 21, 2002, 18:40

But it wouldn't have been a retraction, it would have been an update.

Jaguar · December 21, 2002, 18:47

Oh I was thinking about the possibility of them being wrong. If they were wrong about the people being jailed, you wouldn't hear about it.

If they were right, and the people were still locked up, we would. I'll draw an analogy: When Trent Lott first said the "all these problems" quote, the media criticized him a little, but it did not dominate the news. After each of his "apologies" in which he basically stood by the statement, the story was reported on more and more. The same would happen in the case of the allegedly locked up people. The media wouldn't care if they were released in a few days. But for each day they were kept, the media would make it into a bigger issue. However, it has not. Thus you can draw the conclusion that they haven't been kept.

GeneralTacticus · December 21, 2002, 18:50

Well, look at Camp X-Ray - they've been holding people there since last year, but you hardly ever hear about it. Doesn't mean they're not still there.

Kramerman · December 21, 2002, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I think Mel Gibson said it best in "The Patriot"

"Why trade 1 tyrant that's 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants that are 1 mile away..."

well, the power would be shared among 3000 tyrants, making each individual tyrant less powerful, and they would only be a mile away, making them much easier to kill if they pissed you off

Go second amendment!

Kman

Quote:

So you call it common sense to lock up people based on their ethnicity/religion/whatever, with no charges being brought against them an dno indication whatsoever of what's happened to them, or even that they still exist? I'd have thought America was beyond that stage by now, and the fact that the media doesn't seem to mention them at all is rather disturbing...

well, the people were detained for fear that they were terrorists or had connections to terrorists with other plots such as the 9/11 one. If even one of those 1000 people would have had a plot half as deadly, it would make detaining those 1000 people more than justified. If you think differently, then i would like to see you explain your thoughts to one of the families of these hypothetical victims.

And had the US not detained them, and one of them had done a terrorist attack, you know what would happen? Everyone would be asking why the government did nothing to stop them if they knew that person posed a terroist threat. And then they would have all those Congressional inquaries and investigations and stuff like what they are going for the 9/11 attacks.

And beyond what stage are you refering? After 9/11, our nation felt vulnerable and cornered, and we are doing as much as we can to protect ourselves. It is very unfortunate for those who were detained wrongly, but if they had nothing to hide, then they should have nothing to fear and have been released (one such man is a arab docter in my area. it recieved much coverage when he was forcefully detained a few days following 9/11, but when he was released it got little more than a tiny article in the deep recesses of the local newspaper). As the government doesnt target muslims or arabs because they hate muslims or arabs or something ludicrous like that, if that is what you are inferring. Those who were detained were not done so just becasue they were from a specific group, they were all just suspect of having connections with terroism. Nothing racist or prejudiced about it. If that were the case, a whole lot more than 1000 would have been detained.

Im sure your country, or any other country would do the same, if not to a higher degree, if they had similar experiences as the US.

Kman