Am 01.01.2014 07:40, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as
> much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of
> other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its
> both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to
> plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

I do agree that the relationship between citizens and "officers" - be 
they law enforcement, TSA or whatever - in the US seems to be 
fundamentally different from that in Europe, or at least in Germany. 
(Nowadays, that is. It must have been more US-like over here some 
decades ago, probably until around 1970.)

Over here, it is commonly accepted by both citizens and "officers" that 
(1) orders from the latter may be questioned by the former, and (2) the 
former may address the latter like they would any other human being. It 
doesn't seem to be like that in the US.

One thing that would be impossible over here, for instance, would be the 
following dialogue I witnessed myself at an international airport 
between a TSA officer and an old man - the latter isn't quoted verbatim, 
but the former is, word for word:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"The belt has to go off."
"But I tell you it's all plastic."
"The belt has to go off."
"Really, it's all plastic. No metal at all."
"The belt has to go off."
"But I bought it specifically to keep it on when flying."
"The belt has to go off."
"But it's always been ok to keep it on each time I've flown before."
"The belt has to go off."

In the US, it felt natural for the officer to just assert her authority 
over the matter and expect the traveler to comply.

In Germany, it would have felt natural for the dialogue to take a slight 
but important turn:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"It doesn't matter what it's made of. The belt has to go off."

See how the officer would have relied not only on authority, but also on 
a pinch of reason: The order isn't given "just because" - it is given 
because the material of the belt doesn't matter. It also serves to let 
the traveler know that his objections have been heard.

Of course the traveler would probably have continued the dialogue:

"But I bought it specifically to keep it on when flying."
"I'm sorry, but the belt has to go off."

See how the officer would have acknowledged the procedure to be 
inconvenient to the traveler.

"But it's always been ok to keep it on all the time I've flown before."
"You've probably always gone through old-fashioned metal detectors. 
We're using different technology here, and for that the belt has to go off."

See how the officer would again rely on reason.

For the officer to just repeat her order over and over would be 
absolutely unthinkable in Germany. Here, people expect officers to 
acknowledge objections at /some/ level - if only in a "I've heard what 
you said" kind of way.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/2014 12:54 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> In Germany, it would have felt natural for the dialogue to take a slight
> but important turn:

I have been doing a lot of flying between London and Brussels, recently.
The dialogue would go like this:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"Well, if you want to risk it setting off the alarm. On you go."

The security in Brussels airport are particularly "human" and treat you 
like a person. The ones in Heathrow are polite but snowed under with the 
number of travellers and tend to be more peremptory.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:27:19 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 1-1-2014 5:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Good to know I'm not alone. ;)
> 
> I think that should have been a :(

Perhaps, though it does make me feel a little better about it knowing I'm 
not the only one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Bingo.  It's for my blood pressure.  Historically, the things that Warp 
> writes in threads like this do nothing but wind me up, because I think is 
> arguments are ultimately stupid and pointless.  I've tried a number of 
> times to have the debates, and the end result is the same:  My blood 
> pressure goes up, I get angry, and nothing is achieved.

> Since it happens on a number of topics, there's no point in reading 
> anything he writes, because historically what he's written has made me 
> angry more often than not because he comes across as completely ignorant 
> and unwilling to listen to reason.

You talk like this would be a common thing, yet I can't even remember
the last time you, or anybody else, had such a tantrum.

Then, when someone asks about it, you engage in personal attacks and
belittling comments, and you make it clear that you won't be reading
any possible responses.

Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
attacked or insulted you personally.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as 
> much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of 
> other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its 
> both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to 
> plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

Before Jim got his tantrum, he kind of missed my point.

It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
because nothing illegal was actually done.

For example, as far as I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
but at least in some states it's actually completely legal for police
officers to lie to suspects, and this is regularly abused eg. by traffic
cops to try to make drivers incriminate themselves (often of traffic
violations or other crimes they haven't actually committed.)

Time and again you can read stories about a cop abusing or injuring
someone, or otherwise going well beyond the limits of what the situation
had required, and get no penalty for it. Often it's not even investigated
at all. In the most publicized cases it might get investigated, but even
then no punishment is enacted, or the punishment is really light.

It's not the acts themselves per se, it's the reaction of the government
to them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 11:06 AM, Warp wrote:
> It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
> of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
> it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
> the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
> because nothing illegal was actually done.

I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that 
doesn't make it a Police State.
Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.
As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't 
hear us being called one, often.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:06 AM, Warp wrote:
> > It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
> > of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
> > it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
> > the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
> > because nothing illegal was actually done.

> I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
> You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that 
> doesn't make it a Police State.

"It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
of a police-state-like system."

Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police state,
and the reason was not the *frequency* of the abuse, but the *reaction*
of the government and officials to it.

> Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.

How about people, especially if they are not white, getting regularly
stopped by police simply for walking on the street?

> As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't 
> hear us being called one, often.

"Other countries do it too" doesn't diminish the severity or meaning.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 11:51, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:06 AM, Warp wrote:
>> It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
>> of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
>> it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
>> the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
>> because nothing illegal was actually done.
>
> I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
> You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that
> doesn't make it a Police State.
> Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.
> As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't
> hear us being called one, often.
>

This thread is beginning to bring Pink Floyd's 'Gunner's Dream' to mind:

... where you can speak out loud about your doubts and fears
and, what's more, no-one ever disappears, you never hear their standard 
issue kicking in your door. You can relax on both sides of the tracks 
and maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control and everyone 
has recourse to the law and no-one kills the children anymore.

John

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2014 07:29 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On 02/01/2014 11:06 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
>>> of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
>>> it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
>>> the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
>>> because nothing illegal was actually done.
>>
>> I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
>> You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that
>> doesn't make it a Police State.
>> Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.
>> As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't
>> hear us being called one, often.
>>
>
> This thread is beginning to bring Pink Floyd's 'Gunner's Dream' to mind:
>
> ... where you can speak out loud about your doubts and fears
> and, what's more, no-one ever disappears, you never hear their standard
> issue kicking in your door. You can relax on both sides of the tracks
> and maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control and everyone
> has recourse to the law and no-one kills the children anymore.
>
> John

OK ... good one, I quit /really/ reading this thread awhile ago (except 
nuggets like these) ... It really ceased being about the original topic 
a long time ago and more like a pissing contest about differing opinions 
... lol yeah I said that!

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 12:11 PM, Warp wrote:
> "It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
> of a police-state-like system."
>
> Please read what I wrote.

I did read what you wrote. I was replying to the subtext.

> I said that the US feels*like*  a police state,
> and the reason was not the*frequency*  of the abuse, but the*reaction*
> of the government and officials to it.
>
>> >Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.
> How about people, especially if they are not white, getting regularly
> stopped by police simply for walking on the street?
>

That is racism, Police State-ism (;-) )applies to the majority of the 
state. Not just a few ethnic groups.

>> >As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't
>> >hear us being called one, often.
> "Other countries do it too" doesn't diminish the severity or meaning.

A sentence can be more than the sum of the words.

Your point is not the point that I was making. Not in the slightest degree.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message