At what point is it a police state?
Nov 15, 2014 14:56:25 GMT -6
blackcatmagic, Mystic Wanderer, and 1 more like this
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 14:56:25 GMT -6
What defines a police state? According to Merriam Webster, it can be described this way:
Source
I have often scoffed at the notion of a police state here, by having thought of it as many stages beyond what we see now and a more open and oppressive presence of the State's authority. This article makes me wonder a bit if a different way of looking at this may be in order. We don't need open and uniformed police to feel oppressed, if we look around at a crowd to realize it's reached a point that a % will be badge carrying professionals, and maybe not even from the same agencies.
People who know me, know I grew up around cops. I'm still around cops to some degree when professional interests cross paths, and for the most part? I have no issues with them or what they do. I'm having to remind myself more and more though....as much as I can point to Chicago and say they are unusually corrupt, I need to recall I seem to live in an area unusually FREE of it. I'm certainly not seeing the average state of things, as we read more like this.
(I'd make one minor correction.. J Edgar Hoover had been ADAMANT "his FBI" not be corrupted by the act of becoming a criminal to hunt one..and that worked until they ignored it)
In terms of the absurdity it has reached? I live very near and around the town which came to be known a couple years back for the USDA making a rather well staffed sting operation successful with busting .........people selling raw milk at the farmers market. I've met one of the folks in that, since and I've had some of the milk which caused that. (Yum Yum!! If only I COULD buy it. It makes "store milk" compare like colored water). That was using undercovers......and it does make you wonder...does EVERY infraction of the shelves worth of code we have now, require a secret agent to betray the trust of a citizen to pursue?
After all, we hardly care...nor should we....when it is to capture MAJOR felonies (like murder for hire, for instance), but outside that? It's still putting one person, by design, into a position to gain the trust of another, befriend them, and then burn them worse than any person can burn another outside that context...........then the agent moves on to do it again! Aside from wondering what kind of people the agents become in time ...I have to ask?
Source
Is this really worth it? Are we becoming a police state by covert oppression and a velvet glove over the lead lining?
In the end, an effective undercover isn't a cop playing a role. That gets you a dead undercover. It is a criminal who will eventually return to the law enforcement world he briefly left to catch someone doing something. .....outside the most pressing needs of public safety for crimes involved? I do wonder...does this do MORE harm than good to *ALL SIDES* involved?
a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures
I have often scoffed at the notion of a police state here, by having thought of it as many stages beyond what we see now and a more open and oppressive presence of the State's authority. This article makes me wonder a bit if a different way of looking at this may be in order. We don't need open and uniformed police to feel oppressed, if we look around at a crowd to realize it's reached a point that a % will be badge carrying professionals, and maybe not even from the same agencies.
WASHINGTON — The federal government has significantly expanded undercover operations in recent years, with officers from at least 40 agencies posing as business people, welfare recipients, political protesters and even doctors or ministers to ferret out wrongdoing, records and interviews show.
People who know me, know I grew up around cops. I'm still around cops to some degree when professional interests cross paths, and for the most part? I have no issues with them or what they do. I'm having to remind myself more and more though....as much as I can point to Chicago and say they are unusually corrupt, I need to recall I seem to live in an area unusually FREE of it. I'm certainly not seeing the average state of things, as we read more like this.
Undercover work, inherently invasive and sometimes dangerous, was once largely the domain of the F.B.I. and a few other law enforcement agencies at the federal level. But outside public view, changes in policies and tactics over the last decade have resulted in undercover teams run by agencies in virtually every corner of the federal government, according to officials, former agents and documents.
In terms of the absurdity it has reached? I live very near and around the town which came to be known a couple years back for the USDA making a rather well staffed sting operation successful with busting .........people selling raw milk at the farmers market. I've met one of the folks in that, since and I've had some of the milk which caused that. (Yum Yum!! If only I COULD buy it. It makes "store milk" compare like colored water). That was using undercovers......and it does make you wonder...does EVERY infraction of the shelves worth of code we have now, require a secret agent to betray the trust of a citizen to pursue?
After all, we hardly care...nor should we....when it is to capture MAJOR felonies (like murder for hire, for instance), but outside that? It's still putting one person, by design, into a position to gain the trust of another, befriend them, and then burn them worse than any person can burn another outside that context...........then the agent moves on to do it again! Aside from wondering what kind of people the agents become in time ...I have to ask?
Across the federal government, undercover work has become common enough that undercover agents sometimes find themselves investigating a supposed criminal who turns out to be someone from a different agency, law enforcement officials said. In a few situations, agents have even drawn their weapons on each other before realizing that both worked for the federal government.
Is this really worth it? Are we becoming a police state by covert oppression and a velvet glove over the lead lining?
In the end, an effective undercover isn't a cop playing a role. That gets you a dead undercover. It is a criminal who will eventually return to the law enforcement world he briefly left to catch someone doing something. .....outside the most pressing needs of public safety for crimes involved? I do wonder...does this do MORE harm than good to *ALL SIDES* involved?
