NEWS: Potential Police State or Necessary Evil?

POLITICS: Potential Police State or Necessary Evil?

Anyone who lives in post 9/11 Washington DC has grown accustomed to the garden of Jersey barriers and checkpoints surrounding the U.S. Capitol and White House. But with the recent terror warnings, Security is reaching new levels (salon day pass required).

On Friday I had an opportunity to view the new security first-hand when a friend who works in the Senate gave me a tour of the Capitol building. The Eastern Bloc feel of it is surreal. Obviously vigilance is important, but it is important to remember that Washington, DC is a city, not a fortress. Is there a point where we go to far in protecting our interests?

Yes.

Fidel Castro has less security protecting him, and he faces a much more real threat than Bush Does. (George Bush Himself)

They are not protecting themselves from terrorists.
They are building a fortress for when the masses can't afford anything on TV.

They are expecting you.

Well, I'm more afraid of my government than the 'Terrorists', so this kind of has the opposite effect of security for me.

It appears that some federal legislators and bureaucrats are more concerned with their own safety than the general welfare of Washintgon, D.C. residents as a whole, considering that the city has been known as the "murder capital" of the United States and residents currently do not benefit from the same representation as do most Americans.

police state. unnecessary evil.

I'm with you on this. Preach on, brother.

I do think it was Ben Franklin who said something about those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither security nor liberty?
How many American citizens have died from terrorism compared to how many have died as a result of poverty and all it's associated ills?

crime as a whole has been declining for at least a decadeyet police are constintly saying they need more troops and more money, i guess they need something to do, some use of their troops, some justification for their demands.

"i'm talkin about a full on,motherfuckin...R E V O L U T I O N...."....

Whats the modern american equivilant to the bastille? It'll be some mess when the peasants storm a nuclear bunker.

In the october revolution in 1917 russia, most of the police refused to fire on the revolutionaries, similarly in the french revolution. Do people think the American Army and 'defence forces' would mobilise in favour of the government against the American people?

911 was a terrible event, but its worth keeping a sense of proportion on the risk created by terrorism.

Here are some annual death rate statistics for America.

435,000 - Tobacco
400,000 - Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity
85,000 - Alcohol
43,000 - Motor Vehicle Crashes

Source : http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

How might we act if we judged our actions on the actual number of people killed by various causes?

If I was in Al-Qaeda, I would buy shares in Phillip Morris and give away TV's and cummfy sofas.

If I was the President, I would drop napalm on tobacco fields.

quoting a former co-worker who was in the army(in unintelligent sounding monotone voice):" well, the government knows what's best, so..."

I think we should step back a bit and look at the highly abused word combo, "necessary evil."

I maintain that this phrase is meaningless. PLEASE, stop using it, as it is very damning and very dangerous.

FIrst of all, what, exactly, does "necessary" really mean in this context? Whose idea of necessary, after all? Is having two legs necessary? What about freedom - is it necessary? Yes and no. Depends on who you're asking, and when. And where. And why.

Secondly, "evil?" Give me a flippin' break already. Is there a word more ripe for contextual misinterpretation? Enough philo-treatises have been written about the word to fill the Vatican's vaults. Which one do we pull off the shelf for "necessary evil?"

Both of these words are wide open to exceedingly subjective interpretation. Shouldn't we strive for objective analyses when it comes to inter/national affairs?

Y'all are being clouded by this "necessary evil" poppycock. Toss it out of the debate. Refuse to engage it. Necessary evil is snake oil, my friends. . .the kind used to make the slope so damned slippery.

I just looked up the number of people killed by the A-Bomb in Hiroshima, which was about 200,000

Just imagine, smoking kills just over twice that number each year!

Taking the risk from inactivity, the car and the TV must be the most effective WMD's ever invented.

Are you really going to surrender your freedoms because of the risk from terrorism?

They're also concerned about the thousands of Congressional employees who work there, and about the ability of the government to continue to operate in the event of a terrorist attack.

As for representation in Congress, yes, there's no question that DC residents deserve it, but there's nothing to suggest that representation is the key to decreasing violent crime in the district. Unfortunately, a lot of the statehood movement folks have blown it up into a magic bullet that's going to solve all the district's ills, but they really might want to consider the fact that the district government itself is riddled with incompetence, laziness and corruption. It's gotten a lot better in the last six years, but it's still pretty bad.

word.

Well, you guys did that 25 years ago, and not merely the freedom to drive past the Federal Reserve. How'd it work out?

We are not going to live forever.
We have to die some way. If smoking is banned then the number of deaths from other illneses will increase to fill the vacume.
Banning tobacco will reduce people's freedom and only lengthen people's lives for a few years. (smoking might shorten your life, but it takes the crappy bit at the end)

Driving kills a lot of people, more tragic deaths due to their sudden and seemingly random nature. What is the solution to this ban driving? This would have a very negative effect on people's freedom and their standard of life. Is it worth restricting this freedom for billions of people if it might save millions of lives? (environmental and social impact of excessive car use excepted)

Terrorist attacks kill a relatively tiny number of people each year, yet the government expects us to sacrifice huge freedoms with no guarantee that we would ever be any more secure. We are expected to accept these sacrifices based only on the promises of the proven liers and manipulators of facts and circumstances for their own personal gain.

When the government does too much, we complain. When the government doesn't do enough, we are happy... until an attack comes, then we point the fingers and ask why they didn't do enough to stop it.

25? Theres been a susstained attack on civil liberties in this country for about 10 years now starting with the Criminal Justice Act which started regulating when and where we could assemble. I don't think we lost anything major before then, at least since the war.

Prevention of Terrorism Act, passed in '74, fully implemented by '79. You lost open trial, trial by jury, witness corroboration, right to confront a witness, the right against self incrimination, freedom of assembly and had habeas corpus and right to counsel substantially curtailed.

You are right, some of the laws are damaging to civil liberty. Even the possession of information has been made a crime,.

In principle, possession of some of my chemistry text books could land me in jail and I have to prove that I am not guilty.

Before my time. I was aware of most of the rights the last Tory administration and the current Labour one had taken away. At least there was a genuine terrorist threat in the 70's, not that really excuses such blatant abuse of civil liberties.

The more recent Acts have been entirely aimed at people who want to exercise their right (or ex-right as it is) to demonstarte peacefully. The glorious freedoms of Western Democracy eh?