Talk:Police state/Archive 3

Fascism
Why isn't Fascism listed under the list of see alsos? marxism-lenninism is listed, which is fair, but a fascist state is inherently a police state, while a marxist state isn't necessarily. I couldn't edit it, but i think someone should put that up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.101.155 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think that potentially neither Fascist or Marxist states are necessarily police states, although to be honest I am unsure for certain. Regardless, I have added Fascism to the list - the terms do indeed appear to be related. Thanks! Tachyon502 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Police States
I don't really see the relevance to the article of most of the fictional police states which have been recently added. As I haven't seen/read most of them, it is fairly hard to establish however. Do others think that these should remain or be removed?

Thanks Tachyon502 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Several of the items in the Fictional Police States list are of dubious relevance at best (e.g. Zardoz, Rollerball), or completely irrelevant (e.g. the reference to the Left Behind series... which item looks like it was copied/pasted with less than 100% accuracy, BTW).

How about some examples of actual police states? (We see of photo of a couple of North Koreans. Why are they relevant? So North Korea is a police state? What makes it one? What are some other current and historical examples of police states, and why would we classify them as such?)

In addition, the discussion of enlightened absolutism seems out of place. Is this an attempt to provide an argument in favour of police-state absolutism? I see nothing objectionable with including a section covering ideological and other justifications used by police states, but this is very narrow.

The article as a whole is fairly disjointed, not very informative, and could use a lot of work.

cheers Jonstephens (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality 2
The article at the beginning says : The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, potentially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

but later, in reference to the US it says: Compulsory vaccinations are also in use

Can we agree that per our own definition, compulsory vaccinations are not a quality of a police state? Bonewah (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also to answer your previous question, I would be happy to rewrite the section in question, I am not opposed to a list of countries per se, just a list that has the US and UK sitting along side North Korea and Nazi Germany. There is no reason to exclude the most obvious examples, but the article even says that it is not possible to objectively determine whether a nation has become or is becoming a police state. In my opinion, the best way to avoid POV problems is to focus on the most egregious examples of police states and go into further detail about the characteristics of a police state. Bonewah (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Bonewah, but I don't agree! According to our own definition, a police state "exhibits elements of social control and there is little or no distinction between the law and etc." Also "The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement."


 * Compulsory vaccinations are a pinnacle example of social control, and their being little or no distinction between law and the exercise of political power. It is also an example of a restriction of freedom which is subject to police enforcement. Rather I would suggest that we reference this point with these peer-reviewed journal articles - "Public health strategy and the police powers of the state.", Galva JE, Atchison C, Levey S., Public Health Rep. 2005;120 Suppl 1:20-7, [], [] and "Bioterrorism Defense: Are State Mandated Compulsory Vaccination Programs an Infringement upon a Citizen's Constitutional Rights?", Brendon Kohrs; Journal of Law and Health, Vol. 17, 2002 []. Both of which directly link compulsory vaccinations with a police state.


 * Well, yes it is fundamentally impossible to determine whether a nation has become a police state - that is why the article has to state this. Any police state-like behaviour would always be controversial, as no country stands up and identifies itself as one. In fact, a police state would always deny that it was a police state. To exclude the US or UK, is trivially an example of systematic bias [], as we likely come from the demographic group of the US or UK and hence would prefer it that these examples are not included. However, we have to try and seperate our political perspectives from the article, and if these comments have a basis in fact (which the references prove they do), then they should be included as examples.


 * To remove it, would also be an example of Information Suppression [], which is directly contrary to making an article NPOV! So although I understand where you are coming from, that would make the article less neutral.


 * I think that what we should be focussing on is re-writing the paragraph "As previously discussed, it is not possible to objectively determine whether a nation has become or is becoming a police state. As a consequence, to draw up an exhaustive list of police states would be inherently flawed. However, there are a few highly debated examples which serve to illustrate partial characteristics of a police state's structure. These examples are listed below." as this currently causes confusion. I think this should clearly explain the same point but in much clearer and stronger terms, to ensure that readers realise that this is not a 'stamp' of a country being a police state.


 * Further references are also required, as you quite rightly pointed out with the compulsory vaccinations, no references are currently included to link this to the concept of a police state directly. However, if we work on this we can include further references to solidify the article.


 * The key problem is that there is no independent sourcable list of police state characteristics, the characteristics are intrinsically linked to specific countries. This is how a police state was defined and how the concept has developed into modern day. To include a list of countries is inevitable. Otherwise the article should be moved to 'Politically censored definition of a Police State'! Best Wishes Tachyon502 (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We could also rename the section to "Accusations of Police State-like behaviour" or something similar (more neutral), this might help clairfy what the list is Tachyon502 (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your view of compulsory vaccinations being a quality of a police state. Vaccinations aren't political in nature, so claiming that there is little difference between the law and political power in this case is invalid, IMO.  Likewise with restrictions on freedom, the mere fact that these vaccinations are compulsory does not make them an element of a police state any more than building codes or mandatory schooling are elements of a police state.


 * I still disagree with your assessment that the US and UK are examples of police states. Using our definition, we see that neither country has a secret police, neither country limits its citizens movement in any unique way, neither country suppresses it citizens ability to communicate their political views.  In short, neither country has the elements of a police state that we defined at the onset of the article. Bonewah (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well on your first point, you do realise that you have officially lost the debate. Wikipedia is not built on 'IMO' and the two political science journal articles I have provided justify that vaccinations are both political in nature and a quality of a police state. Hence, the references have been added - leading in article progress.


 * On your second point, both countries have a secret police, have you heard of mass surveillance? Do you know what the CIA and MI5 actually are? Mass surveillance also limits citizen's movements in an extremely unique way. This applies in both the US and the UK. According to the obtainable evidence, you are indeed correct that the US does not suppress its citizen's ability to communicate their political views - hence no such statement exists in the article. However, the UK does and political demonstrations in key areas of central London have to be authorised by the police, or are otherwise an arrestable offence. This is hence included as a referenced point in the article.


 * You do not currently appear to have a strong understanding of the issues related to this article, or indeed of what a police state is. I recommend that you read both the article and its reference material thoroughly. I think you'll find the information you find quite surprising Tachyon502 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is the discussion page, so if you dont mind, ill keep discussing the article.  I fail to see how any of the articles referenced proves that vaccinations are political, rather then public health issues.  Additionally, they are not a quality of a police state as we have defined it at the onset of the article.  Perhaps the statements about vaccinations are appropriate to an article about authoritarianism, but not police state.


 * "Mass surveillance also limits citizen's movements in an extremely unique way" Uh, what?  That's spurious logic at best, how does mass surveillance limit anyone's movement?  The fact that demonstrations have to be authorized if they are going to be in a key area of london means nothing, you can still protest if you get a permit, you can still protest in places other then those "key" areas.  The whole point of a police state is that you cant speak out against the state without fear of arrest, not that you have to get a permit or follow some other minor bureaucratic rules.  Compare North Korea with the UK: in North Korea, no dissent is possible without fear of death or arrest, you cant get a permit to dissent in NK, you cant protest anywhere, that is a police state.


 * As for the CIA or MI5, neither has law enforcement or arrest powers, and, at least with the CIA, cannot operate inside the boundaries of the US. To the best of my knowledge, neither agency uses its power for political repression, neither agency operates outside the confines of the law, they are not used to maintain political power.  They are not secret police and neither the US or the UK should be included in this list.  You are taking minor points an inflating them to absurd proportions to support your desire to see the US and UK on a list of police states. Bonewah (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm pleased that you want to continue the discussion. Unfortunately, all of your points are incorrect, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of what a police state is. You seem to have the idea that a police state is like the one portrayed in 1984, this is absolutely not the case. A police state is on a spectrum (a sliding scale), with the UK and the US at the lower end of the spectrum (the UK arguably mid-way) and the fictional joys of George Orwell at the top. The only way to relate a real-world police state to an 'idealised' police state is via analysis of an individual countries political systems, laws and policies.


 * Compulsory vaccinations are political and are a quality of a police state, the two references I have provided explicitly relate compulsory vaccinations and a police state. Please, Bonewah, please, please, please read these references! Including all of the other references on the article.


 * Ironically, if I had my way, I would like the UK and US removed from the list. However, I am editing this article in a neutral way, and facts and evidence have to take priority - and the facts show that the UK and US both have specific police state traits. I am an editor of fact, not of bias. Tachyon502 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your dodging the issue here, Tachyon. We have a definition of police state right here in the article, and compulsory vaccinations don't fit with the definition we are using.  You keep declaring that vaccinations are political, but you decline to elaborate on your reasoning.  Ive read the first link (Mandatory Vaccinations: Precedent and Current Laws) but that one provides no support to your claims that vaccinations are political in nature or that compulsory vaccinations are an element of a police state.  Likewise with another link you gave (Public Health Strategy and the Police Powers of the State), this article just covers the historical basis for vaccination, quarantines and other emergency public health measures.  What in here do you feel supports your claims? If you feel that something in the other references supports your claims, then the definition at the onset of the article should be changed or amended to reflect that, but as it stands, based on the definition given, mandatory vaccinations are not a quality of a police state.


 * And what of my other complaints? The lack of a secret police in the US and UK, the freedom of movement, the freedom of expression afforded US and UK citizens?  Look at our definition at the onset, in the US and UK is there little difference between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive?  Your sliding scale claim does not allow you to bypass the definition we are using in this article.  If your claim about a sliding scale is correct, then that only reinforces my claim that the list of countries is arbitrary, after all, if the US is at the low end of the scale and 1984 is at the top, then we can include any state at all, making this list useless.  And for what?  Why include a country that by your own admission is low on the scale, what does that accomplish?  Again, lets only focus on the most egregious examples of a police state and elaborate further on characteristics of a police state. Bonewah (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You clearly haven't read the references and/or do not appear to comprehend them! Please stop attempting to provide political bias to the article. If you wish to help mutually improve the article then please explain how, but simply removing information is not the answer. The key to improvement is developing the definition of a police state, not deleting things just because you feel they do not fit with the definition. These concepts do fit with the definition and the problem lies in expressing this clearly and in a well-sourced manner.


 * If you wish to help improve the article, please provide alternative suggestions for a definition with reliable sources, or some other workable development process. Otherwise, this debate is not productive. Tachyon502 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you feel that something in your references supports your position, please do me the favor of either quoting it here or providing me with page numbers. As i said, the two that i did read provide no support to your claims.  Also, please do respond to my other complaints, that the US and UK dont have a great majority of the traits that define a police state, as defined in the article.


 * "The key to improvement is developing the definition of a police state, not deleting things just because you feel they do not fit with the definition." This statement is just bizarre, removing things that do not fit in an article is exactly what wiki editors are supposed to do.  As i said, vaccinations do not fit with the definition in the article, if you think it should be included, either explain why vaccinations are an element of a police state, or find a definition of police state that is both well sourced, and supports your claims that vaccinations are part of it.Bonewah (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "and the facts show that the UK and US both have specific police state traits." Using this approach every country in the world is a police state, and the term completely loses all meaning.--Pepik70 (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Invalid link
This reference link is not working. Can someone please update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benvewikilerim (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Two Contradictions
I don't edit disputed articles such as NPOV but I will offer these comments. I find two contradictions. The first would be the use of the police state quote in regards to the USA, the end of which (abbreviated) is "...'Is America a Police State?' My answer is: 'Maybe not yet". This article is about "Police state", not "Countries that "maybe aren't yet"" police states?. Also the list of police states in regard to the statement as caption "A police state requires a large, militarised police force in order to exercise political power." (btw its militarized) doesn't jive with the UK or US mention in the real world section as both countries have a distinctive divide between military and police powers. Certainly there are other forces at work, but the "police state" power at work certainly aren't military. Just food for thought... discuss. 220.70.250.246 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty disappointing that there has not been a response to my comments in over a week. In a few days I am going to remove the Ron Paul quote as well as the "A police state requires a large, militarized police force..." portions. I fully expect anyone that takes exceptions with the removal of those two portions to have a discussion on the talk page before reverting as I have given ample time for you to do so now. 220.70.250.246 (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your evaluation. Ron Paul may have a point but it's out of place here. Can't help but think it's Ron Paul fan detritus. --Entropy Rising (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it out of place?!! It's DIRECTLY related to police states! 128.232.237.98 (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Ron Paul quote can go. If the US 'police state' was rapidly approaching 8 years ago, where is it?--Pepik70 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you're not paying attention: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/565, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2008/10/27/hafetz, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnVbulr2Pvw, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YRPE7Phayk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2TEhMyRmZg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRASwKvWcbk 67.181.6.225 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Enlightened Absolutism
Should Ron Paul really be included? Yes, it is right to say that "someone in the US has accused it of becoming a police state." However, this is very, very much not mainstream, and so it is a bit much to talk about "accusations of US becoming police state" in the abstract. It should be qualified.

Also, in reference to the questions about Enlightened Absolutism, I believe this should be included. According to A History of the Modern World by R R Palmer, Joseph II, one of the main Enlightened Absolutist rulers, was in fact the founder of the police state. As he writes, "The police state, so infamous to the liberal world, was first systemically built up under Joseph as an instrument of enlightenment and reform." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calc rulz (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

America has long been a country of good vs. evil, and often times America will have to generate or fabricate these evil forces. I'm surprised how little has been written about America being a police state. In some countries, the government forces a society into being a police state, but in America, there doesn't seem to require any force at all. People seem to willingly go along with the police state, sacrificing their rights voluntarily. When interviewed at airports, most Americans actually want MORE security, and do not feel their rights are being violated. America makes heros out of cops. It's actually quite scary. I was driving down a motorway in America and saw that the motorway was named after and dedicated to a cop. I couldn't believe it. Even in North Korea, and China, they do not do this. They make such heros out of cops and brainwash the people into thinking cops are godlike people. Currently, America goes through all email and credit card accounts of passengers flying from Europe into USA. I can see why little is written about America in this category since most of the editors are probably American and don't want to admit that they live in a police state. Most Americans probably wouldn't know they are in a police state because it is such an isolated country, and they have nothing to compare it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.120.169 (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, everytime something is added about America as a police state, someone removes it. I'm afraid Wikipedia is a democracy, and like all democracies this means the majority (read: the stupid) get what they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.237.98 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the comments I added to America being a police state will likely be removed too. "Qualified immunity" and "absolute immunity" protect police in America from virtually all criminal prosecution when they violate American citizens' Constitutional rights. Same goes for judges and prosecutors. I would go so far to say that China and North Korea are not worse than the USA; but equal as far as police state mentality. The comment above is absolutely correct in that the USA screens any and all emails and phone calls of American citizens; there are cameras popping up everywhere from highways to schools; and police can kill you without being punished. If that's not a police state, I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation (talk • contribs) 21:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here as to exactly what a "police state" is. The term has nothing to do with regular police or individual rights: it means that the police (then more often called the "secret police") are used to keep a person or group in power by oppressing dissent. Security at airports may be the subject of dispute, but they are not there to suppress freedom of expression. If it was only "balanced" to include a list of countries and their "police-state characteristics," then the article would have to include other countries as well. It is ironic that Sweden, often considered to be one of the most democratic states in the world, is one of the only ones whose intelligence agency's name includes the word "police." To respond to the above post: The United States does not screen all emails and phone calls, but rather those of suspected terrorists. The level of monitoring found in a police state would require a tremendous amount of resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.6.63 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: your assertion "The United States does not screen all emails and phone calls, but rather those of suspected terrorists." Not true, as anyone high enough in U.S. law enforcement will tell you.  Just as Google screens each and every e-mail that goes through its system, then targets ads to those generating the e-mails according to content, the U.S. government screens ALL e-mails and ALL phone calls for content that is deemed of interest to the government.  You are correct that freedom of expression is not suppressed in an overt way, UNLESS you happen to touch on subject matter that is deemed a matter of "National Security."  Then freedom of expression may very well be curtailed (Wikileaks is an apropros example).  For example, if a person's e-mails and/or phone calls turn up key words that are related to Islamist extremism, the person is certain to become subject to increased scrutiny (surveillance, tracking devices installed on vehicles without the owners' knowledge, surrepticious break-ins, computer bugging, and so on).  The U.S. government (through its many secret agencies, some of which the public is not aware and does not even have the RIGHT to be aware) may not officially be a full-blown "police state," however it is approaching perilously close to that invisible line beyond which it must be considered one.  We are definitely not as "secure in our papers" as the Founders intended.Apostle12 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I might suggest you read the "Cointelpro" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COINTELPRO&oldid=437090698), which details police state tactics that were used during the 1960s and 1970s by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Cointelpro involved the widespread suppression of freedom of expression, up to and including the false imprisonment and assassination of those whose views were deemed especially dangerous.  And that was before 9/11, the Patriot Act, the extension of "national security" concerns into every corner of American life, and technology that would facilitate mass screening of communication between U.S. citizens.  There has never been any lack of willingness on the part of federal agencies to employ police state tactics in America; only the willingness of the people to strenuously object to such tactics (as individuals and through Congressional oversight) has preserved American freedoms. Apostle12 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why this page is solely about communist states?
Maybe it should be neutralized.--MathFacts (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) if it was neutral, it simply wouldnt be wikipedia. if you notice this website, you will see plenty of negative things about communist, and socialist countries, and cover up of capitalist crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.81.143.152 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Police states share similar characteristics worldwide; this has nothing to do with Marxist ideology, "left" or "right." All communist states have been police states; a free communist state has never existed.  Fascism is more difficult to define, however most nations that have worn the fascist label have been, to one extent or another, police states--though their economies ofen embody elements of capitalism.  Free states have always organized their economies along capitalist or socialist lines. Apostle12 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

All fascist and socialist states have been police states but there has been more socialist states than fascist states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.99.205 (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be written from a solely american POV
"In fact, even on a local level, the use of a police force to actively maintain order, outside of emergencies, was nearly unknown before this time." (1856)

In America perhaps, but what about the UK? 90.220.86.155 (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture recoloration & caption
This phrase belongs in the discussion page, not in the caption of the photo. I have removed it from the caption and placed it here.


 * This map needs to be updated. The United States of America currently rank as a party free state, due to laws stating that citizens lose all of their rights when abroad (and can be executed based on suspicion), and can be detained indefinitely based on suspicion alone.*

Should the image be recolored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limescout (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

United States of America
USA is not a free country. This article is biased, it should be improved or just simply deleted. USA is already a police state! TSA is the best example.

This also means people cannot trust Wikipedia.

How Russia is considered "not free" if USA is considered "free"? It doesn't make sense! This article shows that Russia is a police state and USA is not!? What a joke.

I agree and have added much to the Police State page under the USA section. I've been met with great resistance and am attempting to add a total of three section under the USA, please feel free to add what you think should be in there that I may have missed. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of main image
To me this article puts too much weight on a poll from Freedom House. If this image is to be included it should be further down. By having it as a lead image it implies we either agree with it or are presenting it's findings as fact. I would also strongly question the impartiality of Freedom House. Does anyone object to it's removal or repositioning (along with the inclusion of other polls). Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

US Police State
I have sourced all the data that I wish to add and it keeps getting deleted, the subsection Deterioration of Rights and Disarmament is changed so that the disarmament portion is simply removed, so why is Disarmament included in the title that makes no sense, so I made the subsection Deterioration of Rights and made a separate for Disarmament. Below is how I think it should be, please tell me exactly what is "a rant" and what should be corrected or removed so that I can improve the article or understand why it is being removed.

"" Deterioration of Rights Since the attacks of 9/11 various legislation has been passed that nullifies elements of the guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States found in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress and signed into law soon after the attacks of 9/11, and this legislation was framed as protection by giving the state more power by taking away individual rights. Specifically, the Act supersedes in full or partially the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search) and the Sixth Amendment (right to due process). This Act has been used to stop the free speech of individuals, to illegally search a persons property and papers without a warrant, and to deprive people the right to a fair trial. Although presented as a means of protection from terrorists, these practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including drug cases, and political opponents and protesters. Additionally, legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), has been termed 'unconstitutional' since it allows for the indefinite detention or even killing of American Citizens without trial. Another example of the dwindling of rights in America is the limiting of, or harassment for, traveling specifically by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The TSA has been harshly criticized for implementing 'security' prerequisites for traveling forcing travelers to endure radiating body scanners, called 'naked body scanners' because they show the person being scanned without clothes, also the scanners are potentially dangerous as they have been shown to be potentially cancer causing and DNA damaging, the alternative to the scanner is having an invasive 'pat down' where travelers genitals are touched (a crime in all states, and something even police cannot do without probable cause), including 'pat downs' of children (a more serious crime). The TSA has been accused of being a private police of the government (something many police state have), which is troubling because they do not have to take an Oath to the Constitution and are seemingly acting outside of the law, and have been expanding from air travel to other travel such as trains, subways, and highways and are even doing the 'pat downs' for security to events. Furthermore, agencies in the Government have been involved in elaborate schemes to spy on all Americans violating privacy and constitutional law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has hired a former KGB chief, and possibly also a former Stasi chief, to consult on techniques and methods of acquiring information. Additionally, the DHS and the NSA are monitoring all American citizens, including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Disarmament Disarming the population is key to having a police state as an armed populace is more likely to be able to throw off the chains of tyranny, and previous police states of Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot and Mao all implemented disarmament as part of their reign. There have been countless attempts to disarm and limit the American populaces Second Amendment Right to "bear arms", with the most recent example being the UN Small Arms Treaty of 2012. The first gun control laws were against black people after slaves were freed in order to keep them from owning firearms, so like the drug war, this fight against the American people has its roots in racist laws. In fact, gun confiscation has already occurred in one modern American city; in hurricane Katrina the citizens of New Orleans, including those that had plenty of food and water and were in 'high and dry' areas were stripped of their firearms illegally, and the military patrolled the streets of that American city partaking in disarmament and doing police activities. Other recent notable incidents of attempted gun confiscation is the "Fast and Furious" Operation carried out by the US Government in which guns were sent to violent drug gangs in the US and to Mexican drug gangs resulting in the killing of many people including Border Patrol agents. This incident was seen by many as a False Flag to demonize the Second Amendment allowing for the passage of very restrictive gun control, but the operation was unsuccessful in this regard when it came out that the ATF, FBI, DEA, ICE and even members of the US Government in the highest echelons including US Attorney General Eric Holder and possibly President Obama knew of the plan to give known violent drug cartels the weapons, and the allowance of tons of cocaine and marijuana to flow back into the United States to be distributed in US cities. Some cities such as New York and Chicago have succeeded in banning types of commonly used guns such as handguns. Groups such as the Oath Keepers, which are serving military and veterans of war, police and others who have taken an Oath to defend and protect the Constitution understand the risk of and the reality that elements of the US Government want and are actively trying to severely limit and end the Second Amendment, thus The Oath Keepers have vowed to uphold the Oath they took to 'protect and defend the Constitution'. The Oath Keepers know that protecting the rights of US Citizens to own and use firearms is paramount and will fight to protect this right (and more broadly will protect all Constitutional rights of the populace) from being violated by overreaching governments. "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack T. Tripper (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok the title has been changed and I'm fine with that. But why was so much removed, it was sourced and seems very relevant... Why was the TSA portion removed? Why was the NSA and DHS spying portion removed? Why was the entire Disarmament portion removed? These are important issues that all indicate police state... maybe the text should be altered if deemed necessary but I see no reason to just remove them all. Please explain why this was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack T. Tripper (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And now the additional section has been reduced from a paragraph to a sentence, please explain why the rest was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack T. Tripper (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of it was uncited, unsupported by reliable, third-party sources. As such, I removed it per WP:Verifiability.  Toa   Nidhiki05  16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true, and I contend it is not, why not put in a instead of deleting it all? I'm going to re-post and if you have a problem with what is written could we talk about the issues you have instead of just deleting entire paragraphs?! If there is a faulty or not reputable citation then please put in the instead of deleting lines or entire paragraphs. After you do this I will know which YOU think are nu-sourced or not reputably sourced then and I will look at your case and replace the citation or delete that section if you are right. On the issue of being unbiased or faulty arguments I request that you bring each issue to me so you can tell me what YOU think is wrong with it and I will give you my POV and see yours instead of this counterproductive blanket deletions of valid points properly sourced. There is more but lets start here.

So I am going to put back in the text and I would ask that you give your opinion and proof for your actions instead of deleting it all. Thanks.  Jack T. Tripper 


 * So you think it's unreasonable for someone to delete material until a citation is put in? Do you understand how this site works?


 * As far as the deletion/revisions of various inclusions you've put in is concerned, the relevant issue is that the job of this site is to report facts, not opinions (I realize that what constitutes this is opinion/depends on perspective, but that's the general idea). For what it's worth, I agree with (from what I've been presented) your perspective on recent developments in the U.S. However, unless something is accepted by about 99% of people, this site doesn't report it as fact--it will say "according to so-and-so...".


 * I would also like to let you know that I reverted this edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=510936610&oldid=510936392 ) with this explanation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=510936754&oldid=510936610 ). Byelf2007 (talk) 5 September 2012
 * Look, there's more than one way of handling this. Sometimes we add a "citation needed". Other times we remove immediately. It depends.
 * Now that it's removed, perhaps the best way to proceed would be to allow Jack to paste a paragraph or two here on the Talk page and offer some citations to support it. Between adding the citations and changing the material to attribute opinions to these named sources, some of it will be acceptable for the article.
 * The nice advantage is that this process avoids edit wars that could result in the article being locked down or editors being blocked. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like Jack to post a proposed version so we can go over it. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 September 2012

Thank you Byelf2007 and StillStanding247; Unfortunately I took lunch and came back and saved the edit I had made, so it's on the page but I'll re-post here below for your convenience. I would appreciate if nobody deletes it and you all can help me polish it up and correct any faulty citations or invalid points if there are any. I really feel the points are relevant and I tried to stay as unbiased and neutral as possible and didn't write it as a opinion piece, far from it. I sourced all the material that isn't common knowledge, and have my masters degree so I've written quite a bit although this is a bit different and it's probably one of my worse subjects (I'm a Mechanical Engineer), but did have a peer reviewed paper published, so I know what I'm doing to a degree. But Wiki editing is new for me so I appreciate the help because I do study police states as a hobby and see more and more the slide of America into this distinction. Please read it over and let me know what you think. Thanks again, this is much more productive then deleting it all with a few word note saying sources are bad (and I KNOW not ALL or even many, I tried for none being unreliable) but nonetheless even if one source was bad why would ALL the other content be deleted as well, TBH it felt like censorship... I look forward to your comments! Thanks, Jack Since the attacks of 9/11 various legislation has been passed that nullifies elements of the guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States found in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress and signed into law soon after the attacks of 9/11, and this legislation was framed as protection by giving the state more power by taking away individual rights in the name of stopping terrorism. Specifically, the Act supersedes in full or partially the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search) and the Sixth Amendment (right to due process), and thus has been used to illegally limit or stop the free speech of individuals, to illegally search a persons property and papers without a warrant, and to deprive people the right to a fair trial. The ACLU claims major flaws as it violates a number of personal freedoms including agents breaking into a house and search it privately and without the owners knowledge and they never have to even tell you they did that, they call this "sneak and peaks", the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely." . Although presented as a means of protection from terrorists, these practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including drug cases, and political opponents and protesters.
 * =====Other constitutional issues=====
 * =====Other constitutional issues=====

Additionally, legislation such as the NDAA, is unconstitutional since it allows for the indefinite detention or even killing of American Citizens without trial which is a clear violation of the Sixth Amendment, domestic and international law. Another example of the dwindling rights in America is the limiting of, or harassment for, traveling specifically by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), this is important because Police States often restrict travel and demand papers. This is done by setting up road blocks, making travel difficult or impossible through bureaucracy and hard to get papers required for travel, and subjecting the would be travelers to embarrassing or painful practices such as the invasive 'pat downs' which we will discuss momentarily. The TSA has been harshly criticized for implementing 'security' prerequisites for traveling, forcing travelers to endure radiating body scanners (called 'naked body scanners' because the image that results is the person without their clothes as the elctromagnitism moves through the clothes and reveals the skin below), also the scanners are somewhat dangerous as they have been shown to be potentially cancer causing and DNA damaging; the alternative to the scanner is having an invasive 'pat down' where travelers genitals are touched (a crime in all states, and something even police cannot do without probable cause), including 'pat downs' of children (a more serious crime). The TSA has even been accused of being a private police of the government (something many police states have), which is troubling because they do not have to take an Oath to the Constitution and are seemingly acting outside of the normal confines of law, and have been expanding from air travel to other travel such as trains, subways, and highways and are even doing the 'pat downs' for security to events. Furthermore, agencies in the Government have been involved in elaborate schemes to spy on all Americans violating privacy and constitutional law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Security Administration (NSA) are monitoring all American citizens, including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.  Jack T. Tripper  —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jack, if you read WP:TPG, you'll see why this is not at any risk of being deleted. Also, please sign your talk page posts with ~ . I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source to bulk up the citing on the TSA portion http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/18/tsa-mission-creep-us-police-state, has anyone had a chance to read it and tell me what is unacceptable with this? If there are no objections I will post it on the main page...  Jack T. Tripper (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To start with, citations 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, and 28 are not reliable - that takes away very large chunks of this. There are also obvious WP:SYNTH issues and original research statements not backed up by sources.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC

I disagree, what makes all of those unreliable in YOUR opinion?! There are news sources, and some are professional opinions like the collection of lawyers (ie #1)... what makes them unacceptable to YOU? Remember this section is called WESTERN CLAIMS, so these are the claims being made, to me they fit perfectly so please enlighten me to your view. Also, so say there are original statements not backed by fact, point them out so we can discuss and maybe change or delete. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They are internet blogs, not reliable sources. It's not opinion, they simply are not reliable sources by neutral, third-party organizations with solid editorial oversight. Not counting the parts with unreliable sources, here are a few examples:


 * Quite frankly nearly all of your proposal uses some form of original research, whether it is taking a statement a source says and adding your opinion to it or not supporting comments with reliable sources. Many of the truly reliable sources you are using are opinion pieces, not factual statements, and should be presented as such. Finally, the whole tone of this is a political rant - comments such as "which we will discuss momentarily" do not belong anywhere in an encyclopedia.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly nearly all of your proposal uses some form of original research, whether it is taking a statement a source says and adding your opinion to it or not supporting comments with reliable sources. Many of the truly reliable sources you are using are opinion pieces, not factual statements, and should be presented as such. Finally, the whole tone of this is a political rant - comments such as "which we will discuss momentarily" do not belong anywhere in an encyclopedia.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly nearly all of your proposal uses some form of original research, whether it is taking a statement a source says and adding your opinion to it or not supporting comments with reliable sources. Many of the truly reliable sources you are using are opinion pieces, not factual statements, and should be presented as such. Finally, the whole tone of this is a political rant - comments such as "which we will discuss momentarily" do not belong anywhere in an encyclopedia.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly nearly all of your proposal uses some form of original research, whether it is taking a statement a source says and adding your opinion to it or not supporting comments with reliable sources. Many of the truly reliable sources you are using are opinion pieces, not factual statements, and should be presented as such. Finally, the whole tone of this is a political rant - comments such as "which we will discuss momentarily" do not belong anywhere in an encyclopedia.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly nearly all of your proposal uses some form of original research, whether it is taking a statement a source says and adding your opinion to it or not supporting comments with reliable sources. Many of the truly reliable sources you are using are opinion pieces, not factual statements, and should be presented as such. Finally, the whole tone of this is a political rant - comments such as "which we will discuss momentarily" do not belong anywhere in an encyclopedia.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The problem isn't that none of this is good, it's just that there's a lot in it that's bad, and sifting through it and repairing the prose to make it neutral/non-weaseley is a pain. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 September 2012

Ok I will re-write it all with other sources. I noticed that you said all of the RT.com are not acceptable, why not? Also I plan on adding a prison section since we have more people in jail than any other country has had, does anybody have a problem with this premise? Jack T. Tripper (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section and have added a new section since the prison population portion doesn't belong in the constitutional section. I've left in the RT sources until somebody tells me why they aren't acceptable, I will find others that corroborate what I am saying if need be but I fhink RT should be acceptable so am leaving it in until someone proves it shouldn't be in there... just calling it unreliable doesn't make it so, and my request to tell me why it is not acceptable hasn't been answered...


 * (Other constitutional issues)*

Since the attacks of 9/11 various legislation has been passed that nullifies elements of the guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States found in the Bill of Rights, the Patriot Act was the first example and it was rushed through Congress and signed into law soon after the attacks of 9/11. Specifically, the Act supersedes in full or partially the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search) and the Sixth Amendment (right to due process), and thus has been used to illegally limit or stop the free speech of individuals, to illegally search a person's property and papers without a warrant, and to deprive people the right to a fair trial. The ACLU claims major problems in the Patriot Act as it violates a number of personal freedoms including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely." . Although presented as a means of protection from terrorists, these practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including drug cases, and political opponents and protesters. Additionally, legislation such as the NDAA, is unconstitutional since it allows for the indefinite detention or even killing of American Citizens without trial, among other violations to our Bill of Rights, and is a clear violation of several amendments including the Sixth Amendment. Another example of the dwindling rights in America is the limiting of, or harassment for, traveling specifically by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) accomplished by setting up road blocks, making travel difficult or impossible through bureaucracy and hard to get papers required for travel, and subjecting the would be travelers to embarrassing or painful practices and have been harshly criticized for implementing these 'security' prerequisites for traveling that include forcing travelers to endure dangerous radiating body scanners (called 'naked body scanners' because scanner reveals the traveler on screen with no clothes), the alternative to the scanner is having an invasive 'pat down' where travelers genitals are touched (a crime in all states, and something even police cannot do without probable cause), including 'pat downs' of children (a more serious crime). The TSA was placed at airports initially but have been expanding from air travel to other travel such as trains, subways, and highways and are even doing the 'pat downs' for security to events.

Another indicator of America being a police state is a Government that unreasonably and/or illegally spys on its own people, which is something the US Government is involved in violating privacy and constitutional law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Security Administration (NSA) are monitoring all American citizens, including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.


 * (Prison population)*

Another indication the USA is a police state is the comparison of the number of prisoners in the US to other countries, specifically other 'western' countries where freedom is supposedly the most abundant, the USA accounts for nearly 5% of the world's population but holds 25% of the worlds prison population. China is widely considered a police state and has four times the population of the USA but still has far less people in prison than the USA with 2.3 Million in the US versus 1.6 million in China. When considering the number of prisoners per 100,000 people of the population, the USA also comes in the highest, with 751 people per 100,000, and the average for all nations is 125 people per 100,000, with Russia coming in second with 627 per 100,000.

Also if someone can tell me how to use one source multiple times without multiple entries made on the citation portion I would appreciate it. Maybe we should combine the 1st amendment free speech zone section with my section and create a new constitutional issues section, what do you think?

Jack T. Tripper (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Another I would like to add:


 * Civilian spies and security force

Aside from an army brigade assigned to the homeland a civilian force called Infragard, which uses business people, civilians and others to spy on clients, and members of the community and report to the FBI, having over 40,000 members it has been criticized by the ACLU saying there "is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate (Terrorism Information and Preventing System) TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations - some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers - into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI", other critics call this the equivalent of the East German Stasi. In a speech in 2008, President Obama called for a civilian military service as strong as and well funded as the military, and a bill to do just this was passed requiring three years of 'volunteer service' and has garnered criticism calling it a civilian force is akin to the brown shirts.

19:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack T. Tripper (talk • contribs)


 * I looked this over, and other grammatical/formatting issues, and the "dwindling rights" reference (which I don't think is neutral), this looks fine to me. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2012

Thanks for looking it over Byelf2007, if nobody has a problem I will update the main page with the above and will reexamine the "dwindling rights" reference.

Also, there is a question of media being controlled by the State, I've written another small section and will post below for inspection before adding to main page.


 * State controlled/influenced media

It came out that the Bush administration had paid several journalists to run stories that put the administration in a good light and to help with winning over public opinion on its agenda. This was far from the first time the Government has influenced the media, Operation Mockingbird was a program to have the CIA to give the media 'tips' and 'guide' them on what to report starting in the 1950's. It's been questioned whether a version of Operation Mockingbird is alive and well today and there is good evidence that shows that indeed it is including the Bush payment to journalists and the inability of the media to stay neutral in many events such as the Weapons of Mass Destruction leading up to the Iraq War (proven later to be based on false evidence).

Jack T. Tripper (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again I see major issues here. Citations 30, and pinion piece, is insufficient to make claims of fact. Citation 31, then, does not support the statement "Since the attacks of 9/11 various legislation has been passed that nullifies elements of the guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States found in the Bill of Rights, the Patriot Act was the first example and it was rushed through Congress and signed into law soon after the attacks of 9/11". The only claim it supports is that a judge ruled that it violates the 4th amendment, not that it 'nullifies rights'. Citations 32 and 33 are texts of laws and do not support the claim that "Specifically, the Act supersedes in full or partially the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search) and the Sixth Amendment (right to due process), and thus has been used to illegally limit or stop the free speech of individuals, to illegally search a person's property and papers without a warrant, and to deprive people the right to a fair trial"; it is WP:SYNTH to take the two sources and use them as such. On the face of it, the ACLU citations are fine as they represent it is the ACLU that views it as that: as such, the entire statement, however ("The ACLU claims major problems in the Patriot Act as it violates a number of personal freedoms including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely."[34]" simply does not comply with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Citation 35 is fine, Citation 36 attributes ACLU opinion as fact, and Citation 37 does not exist and the source is not reliable - as such, the statement " Additionally, legislation such as the NDAA, is unconstitutional since it allows for the indefinite detention or even killing of American Citizens without trial, among other violations to our Bill of Rights, [37] and is a clear violation of several amendments including the Sixth Amendment." is not supported.
 * The claim "Another example of the dwindling rights in America is the limiting of, or harassment for, traveling specifically by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) accomplished by setting up road blocks, making travel difficult or impossible through bureaucracy and hard to get papers required for travel, and subjecting the would be travelers to embarrassing or painful practices and have been harshly criticized for implementing these 'security' prerequisites for traveling that include forcing travelers to endure dangerous radiating body scanners (called 'naked body scanners' because scanner reveals the traveler on screen with no clothes), the alternative to the scanner is having an invasive 'pat down' where travelers genitals are touched (a crime in all states, and something even police cannot do without probable cause), including 'pat downs' of children (a more serious crime) [38] [39] [40]." is not supported as Citation 38 is not reliable and Citations 39 and 40 are opinion pieces, not factual documents; neither confirm any of the first part of the statement.
 * "Another indicator of America being a police state is a Government that unreasonably and/or illegally spys on its own people, which is something the US Government is involved in violating privacy and constitutional law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Security Administration (NSA) are monitoring all American citizens, including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment [43] [44]." is not supported . Citation 43 is unreliable and citation 44 only supports the claim of one individual. As such, only claims made in the source should be added and they should be attributed to the individual.
 * "Another indication the USA is a police state is the comparison of the number of prisoners in the US to other countries, specifically other 'western' countries where freedom is supposedly the most abundant, the USA accounts for nearly 5% of the world's population but holds 25% of the worlds prison population [45]. China is widely considered a police state and has four times the population of the USA but still has far less people in prison than the USA with 2.3 Million in the US versus 1.6 million in China [46]. When considering the number of prisoners per 100,000 people of the population, the USA also comes in the highest, with 751 people per 100,000, and the average for all nations is 125 people per 100,000, with Russia coming in second with 627 per 100,000 [47]." The opening claim is unsupported. The citation is an opinion piece and has to be presented as such.
 * "Aside from an army brigade assigned to the homeland a civilian force called Infragard, which uses business people, civilians and others to spy on clients, and members of the community and report to the FBI [48], having over 40,000 members it has been criticized by the ACLU saying there "is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate (Terrorism Information and Preventing System) TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations - some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers - into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI", other critics call this the equivalent of the East German Stasi [49]. In a speech in 2008, President Obama called for a civilian military service as strong as and well funded as the military, [50] and a bill to do just this was passed requiring three years of 'volunteer service' and has garnered criticism calling it a civilian force is akin to the brown shirts [51]." Citation 51 does not support the creation of voluntary military service, it notes the bill suggest 'evaluation' of it. Most of the other stuff there is fine.
 * "It came out that the Bush administration had paid several journalists to run stories that put the administration in a good light and to help with winning over public opinion on its agenda [52]. This was far from the first time the Government has influenced the media, Operation Mockingbird was a program to have the CIA to give the media 'tips' and 'guide' them on what to report starting in the 1950's [53]. It's been questioned whether a version of Operation Mockingbird is alive and well today and there is good evidence that shows that indeed it is including the Bush payment to journalists and the inability of the media to stay neutral in many events such as the Weapons of Mass Destruction leading up to the Iraq War (proven later to be based on false evidence) [54]." Citation 52 is fine, supports the claim. Citation 53 is insufficient as there is no direct link to the part of the book that is cited (ie. page) and I am not sure it is reliable. Citation 54 is an opinion piece and needs to be presented as such.
 * ...And that is only the stuff I caught. There are major prose issues as well as an overall SNYTH tone, which simply isn't acceptable. There is some decent stuff in here, but it is surrounded by unsupported claims and bad sources.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

- Ok I will add these (http://www.kean.edu/~eslprog/accents/2006/page2006_13.html) and this (http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N29/col29steph.29c.html) and say in the opinion of professionals it "nullifies or violates" the said amendments.

I don't understand your problem with the ACLU quote... you say it is not neutral? Why not? This section is the claim that the US has elements of a police state, this is going to take opinions of relevant expert groups, right? You also say it is original research, how so? Please give exact quotations of my "original research".

I will add more to the NDAA section showing how judges have called it unconstitutional violating the 1st and 6th amendments and will be adding more amendments it violates, and will be expanded to show how states are suing the government because it is unconstitutional and a Judge has already called it unconstitutional.

For the TSA section I will include that it is the opinion of critics, and additional sources...

As for the NSA spying I will point out it is the claim of a whistleblower and add supporting documents to build the case.

I disagree with your opinion of the prison piece, are you saying that prison populations have NOTHING to do with a police state?! And even though it is an opinion piece in the NY Times, the facts I pull are that facts and not an opinion and are thus valid for use. The same facts could be pulled from other sources but that's not needed because I only present the numerical findings not ANY opinion so it would be incorrect to label the numerical facts as an opinion..

Will change volunteer service to the bill suggests the creation of a volunteer service.

Numerous organizations and experts point out that since 9/11 various legislation has been passed that partially or fully nullifies elements of the guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States found in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act was the first example and it was rushed through Congress and signed into law soon after the attacks of 9/11. Specifically, the Act violates in full or partially the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search) and the Sixth Amendment (right to due process), and thus has been used to illegally limit or stop the free speech of individuals, to illegally search a person's property and papers without a warrant, and to deprive people the right to a fair trial. The ACLU claims major problems in the Patriot Act as it violates a number of personal freedoms including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely." . Although presented as a means of protection from terrorists, these illegal practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including drug cases, and political opponents and protesters. Additionally, legislation such as the NDAA, which is being opposed by nine states and has been deemed unconstitutional by a New York Judge, since among other things it allows for the indefinite detention or even killing of American Citizens without trial violating the Sixth Amendment, it is also claimed to violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments. Another example of the dwindling rights in America is the limiting of, or harassment for, traveling, and critics say this is being done by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) by setting up road blocks, making travel difficult or impossible through bureaucracy and hard to get papers required for travel, and subjecting would be travelers to embarrassing, dangerous or painful practices and have been harshly criticized for implementing these 'security' prerequisites for traveling that include forcing travelers to endure dangerous radiating body scanners (called 'naked body scanners' because scanner reveals the traveler on screen with no clothes), the alternative to the scanner is having an invasive 'pat down' where travelers genitals are touched (a crime in all states, and something even police cannot do without probable cause), including 'pat downs' of children (a more serious crime). The TSA was placed at airports initially but have been expanding from air travel to other travel such as trains, subways, and highways and are even doing the 'pat downs' for security to events.
 * Other constitutional issues

Another indicator of America being a police state is a Government that unreasonably and/or illegally spies on its own people, which experts and whistleblowers say is something the US Government is involved in violating privacy and constitutional law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Security Administration (NSA) are monitoring all American citizens, including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Another indication the USA is a police state is the comparison of the number of prisoners in the US to other countries, specifically other 'western' countries where freedom is supposedly the most abundant, the USA accounts for nearly 5% of the world's population but holds 25% of the worlds prison population. China is widely considered a police state and has four times the population of the USA but still has far less people in prison than the USA with 2.3 Million in the US versus 1.6 million in China. When considering the number of prisoners per 100,000 people of the population, the USA also comes in the highest, with 751 people per 100,000, and the average for all nations is 125 people per 100,000, with Russia coming in second with 627 per 100,000.
 * Prison population

Aside from an army brigade assigned to the homeland a civilian force called Infragard, which uses business people, civilians and others to spy on clients, and members of the community and report to the FBI, having over 40,000 members it has been criticized by the ACLU saying there "is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate (Terrorism Information and Preventing System) TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations - some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers - into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI", other critics call this the equivalent of the East German Stasi. In a speech in 2008, President Obama called for a civilian military service as strong as and well funded as the military, and a bill to do just this was passed examining requiring three years of 'volunteer service' and has garnered criticism calling it a civilian force is akin to the brown shirts.
 * Civilian spies and security force

It became apparent that the Bush administration had paid several journalists to run stories that put the administration in a good light and to help with winning over public opinion on its agenda. Government has influenced the media on many occasions, for instance Operation Mockingbird was a program to have the CIA to give the media 'tips' and 'guide' them on what to report starting in the 1950's. It is a point of debate as to whether a version of Operation Mockingbird is alive and well today and there is good evidence that suggests that indeed it is, including the Bush payment to journalists and the inability of the media to stay neutral in many events such as the Weapons of Mass Destruction leading up to the Iraq War (proven later to be based on false evidence).
 * State controlled/influenced media

Please give any other recommendations so I can transfer to main page. (I've added the media portion with Byelf2007 recommendations)

Jack T. Tripper (talk)22:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "came out" and "far from the first time" are both too unprofessional/pedestrian.


 * "been questioned" makes me think 'by whom'?


 * Other than that, I have no objections to this additional proposed section. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2012

So if there are no exceptions I am transferring this to the main page. Since the main elements have been discussed here and amended PLEASE don't erase it off of the main page, either address me here in the talk section, put a, or a rather than simply deleting it all. I want to thank those of you that helped me make my case and develop my writing and helping me learn how wiki works. I still think a disarmament portion is warranted and plan on submitting to the TALK page this section for your help/approval. Jack T. Tripper (talk)23:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reminder--please do a double-check about npov phrasing and grammar/prose.


 * Suggestion--Put in new material a section at a time (starting with those that have been on talk the longest). This will reduce the chance of you getting reverted (its likely to happen from someone even if they have no objections to the content itself if it's a large addition all at once). Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2012
 * I agree, and those should be screened first as well for original research and synth. It is impractical to judge all the 'changes' at once. As for Jack, original research is you making claims unsupported by citations that are likely to be challenged. Such claims make up a great deal of your sentences, and because even seemingly common claims can be challenged and thus require citations. The other policy, synth, is when you take take two sources and use them to reach a conclusion neither of them source. Your material contains so much of both that the legitimate bits in it are both hard to judge and are drowned out by the bad parts. Also an issue is that you are misattributing opinion pieces as fact. Opinion pieces only represent the view of the writer, so naturally it will swing towards his opinion, not facts. As such, opinion sources must be attributed to the opinion of the writer, not a fact. Also, you are using a variety of unreliable sources, which decreases the amount of good information even further. That isn't to say this material is all bad, but there is plenty of stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
 * Finally, the proposed changes make up a majority of criticism in the page. In contrast to notable and widely accepted police states such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea, and China, which get next to no coverage, having entire paragraphs devoted to labeling the US as such violates policy on undue weight. In other words, greater coverage needs to be given to undisputed police states rather than the US. That isn't to say there aren't valid points - but this could easily be condensed into a single paragraph, maybe two. I'd volunteer to create a sample, since this is a collaborative experience and different options can improve the page and spark ideas. :)  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I will put up one section a day, and if more is needed to correct I will wait and fix it and put up the next after it is done. If Toa wants to make a conglomeration go ahead but try to keep the main points I have made, and I will see what it looks like. Jack T. Tripper (talk)14:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, don't put up one a day. Suggest individual sections here so we can check them and make sure they are fine.  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not how I took his comment... but fine, this seems to be to appease you anyway as others have given the ok and you are the only one removing them off the main page since then... I will repost the same version as above that has already been 'corrected' per your suggestions...

Numerous organizations and experts point out that since 9/11 various legislation has been passed that partially or fully nullifies elements of the guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States found in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act was the first example and it was rushed through Congress and signed into law soon after the attacks of 9/11. Specifically, the Act violates in full or partially the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search) and the Sixth Amendment (right to due process), and thus has been used to illegally limit or stop the free speech of individuals, to illegally search a person's property and papers without a warrant, and to deprive people the right to a fair trial. The ACLU claims major problems in the Patriot Act as it violates a number of personal freedoms including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely." . Although presented as a means of protection from terrorists, these illegal practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including drug cases, and political opponents and protesters. Additionally, legislation such as the NDAA, which is being opposed by nine states and has been deemed unconstitutional by a New York Judge, since among other things it allows for the indefinite detention or even killing of American Citizens without trial violating the Sixth Amendment, it is also claimed to violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments. Another example of the dwindling rights in America is the limiting of, or harassment for, traveling, and critics say this is being done by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) by setting up road blocks, making travel difficult or impossible through bureaucracy and hard to get papers required for travel, and subjecting would be travelers to embarrassing, dangerous or painful practices and have been harshly criticized for implementing these 'security' prerequisites for traveling that include forcing travelers to endure dangerous radiating body scanners (called 'naked body scanners' because scanner reveals the traveler on screen with no clothes), the alternative to the scanner is having an invasive 'pat down' where travelers genitals are touched (a crime in all states, and something even police cannot do without probable cause), including 'pat downs' of children (a more serious crime). The TSA was placed at airports initially but have been expanding from air travel to other travel such as trains, subways, and highways and are even doing the 'pat downs' for security to events.
 * Other constitutional issues

Another indicator of America being a police state is a Government that unreasonably and/or illegally spies on its own people, which experts and whistleblowers say is something the US Government is involved in violating privacy and constitutional law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Security Administration (NSA) are monitoring all American citizens, including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=511766400&oldid=511745371 is a lot for a single edit. I think this would work better if you focused on one section at a time. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2012

Yes I agree and then tried to do as you suggested and added the oldest TALK section "other constitutional issues", and Toa Nidhiki05 deleted it... I will put it back up and hopefully if Toa Nidhiki05 has a problem he can put, or a , and not just delete it all.


 * You should try putting in the subsections one at a time (adding the "other constitutional issues" without the other stuff (different headings, like prison population).


 * From what I've read, Nidhiki05 has made far too vague objections to your material once or twice, while you're a little too eager to put material in before it's discussed. Ask Nidhiki05 for specific objections. If s/he doesn't deliver, I'll support you. Then fix/discuss all of objections. Because of the amount of material you want to include, this whole process might take 2 or 3 weeks.


 * Please be patient. I appreciate all your hard work. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2012

Thank you. I will continue this discussion below. Nidhiki please give specific objections to the 'Other constitutional issues' section listed above so that I can clearly see your concerns/objections. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)