Author Topic: Europe v. US, on freedom from intrusion (Read 563 times)

Neubob · « **on:** October 18, 2006, 01:42:03 PM »

Article

Apparently, big brother is more prevalent in the US than he is over on the Old Continent. Personally, I'm not so surprised. As this nation grows more and more nationalistic, government agencies, as well as the corporations that do so much to build that government, are emboldened. Maybe it's not as bad as it sounds, but what it does sound like is, for lack of a better term, very unAmerican. What I can't wait for is the backlash. At this rate, it'll be a sight to behold.

detch01 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2006, 02:04:19 PM »

From a quick read of the article in your link it seems to me that big brother pretty much has the same capabilities in Europe as in the US. It's just that big brother in European nations is the government while in the US big brother is corporate.

Overall I'd rather neither governments nor private corporations were able to have unfettered use of personal data they collect and have the rights of both to collect that data severely curtailed.

my $0.02

asw

Debonair · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2006, 02:18:12 PM »

if i was in te .gov i would TOTALY be checking out hot chicks in te changing room at victoria secret 'n stuff like that. Zomg that would own
omg that reminds me of... (not for te kids)

Saintaw · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2006, 04:28:37 PM »

The bickering between the different nations/cultures still prevent the EU from having a globalised 1984 system. That is the last step before embracing your version of homeland security and its consequences.

I'm starting to look at asia/au a lot, will probably end up there within a few years...

storch · « **Reply #4 on:** October 18, 2006, 04:41:01 PM »

asia? oh yes historically asiatic governmental systems ahve been known to be highly supportive of individual freedoms and free enterprise, catering to the will of the individual and not at all into totalitariasm. good choice.

Neubob · « **Reply #5 on:** October 18, 2006, 04:46:17 PM »

Australia may be good though. They do suffer from one of Europe's worst diseases, however, but then again, before too long, the US will as well.

Viking · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:10:28 AM »

Just a note to you US guys: In Europe the UK is largely regarded as a police state. More so than the US in fact, but that perception is changing fast these days.

storch · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:38:54 AM »

in what way would you view the US as a police state?

Viking · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2006, 06:46:43 AM »

I personally do not consider the US a police state, yet. However you are getting there with the current line of policies your government is implementing with regard to diminished rights for terror suspects and even allowing torture (those "methods" are considered torture over here).

While they do not condone torture (yet), the UK is far worse than the US.

Saintaw · « **Reply #9 on:** October 19, 2006, 07:08:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
asia? oh yes historically asiatic governmental systems ahve been known to be highly supportive of individual freedoms and free enterprise, catering to the will of the individual and not at all into totalitariasm. good choice.

I'm talking about japan or malaisia... not NK.

storch · « **Reply #10 on:** October 19, 2006, 08:15:05 AM »

while I agree that the bush administration's execution of the "war on terror" here at home has led me to think that there is cause for concern with regard to our civil liberties one can hardly consider the US to be anything resembling a police state. for the time being anyway.

Viking · « **Reply #11 on:** October 19, 2006, 08:21:52 AM »

I agree.

However if and when the time comes when a civilian (US citizen or not) can be arrested and held without trial or legal representation and even tortured - then the US won't just resemble a police state, it will be a police state.

IMHO of course.

storch · « **Reply #12 on:** October 19, 2006, 08:33:01 AM »

should it come to that then we'll rely on our intrepid european cousins to come across the waters and liberate us.

Viking · « **Reply #13 on:** October 19, 2006, 09:00:07 AM »

Oh I don't know about that. You guys have always kicked our butts so …

Viking · « **Reply #14 on:** October 19, 2006, 09:08:18 AM »

Oops, I think Rolex has a point:

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
As the case of Joseph Padilla has shown us, you, I, or anyone can be arrested and held in detention as long as the federal government wants to, without any charges. They won't come out and say, "We don't need to charge him, and we'll keep him as long as we want," but they consistently trying to deny any overt checks on their power to do so. This is a slam-dunk, already-passed, fait accompli type of thing.

The precedent has already been set with Padilla and a few others, and once the feds discovered that there is no formidable public outrage, it's only a matter of slowly, ever so slowly, increasing the frequency with which it could be done by this or any subsequent administration.

If you arrest 10,000 people tomorrow without charge, the public would never stand for it, but if you get them used to it gradually, they'll not only support it but heap scorn and contempt on anyone who would criticize something so critical to our safety.

By gradually acclimatizing the population to detention without charge, they could slowly make it normal and acceptable, and eventually the practice can expand beyond supposedly one-off "emergency" cases like Padilla, or the terrorist of the week.

The same goes for torture. Today, if you object to torture, you have to justify your position, because Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have inoculated people against the idea that torture is, by definition, wrong. I'm beginning to understand how the abolitionists felt at the very beginning, when they were the only ones saying, "Slavery is wrong."

When I tell people, "Torture is wrong," and I have to argue the point, that leaves a very surreal, bizarre, and uneasy feeling in the back of my mind.

We shouldn't note our concerns until we have a full-fledged police state? We shouldn't say, "If we're not careful, we'll end up with a police state," until we do, in fact, have a police state?

You can be arrested and held without charge as long as the government wants to hold you. If they want you to be tortured, they can have you secreted away to a prison where there is no oversight, and no accountability if you're beaten to death. Now, I know many here would like to rephrase this as "Oh my god, they're killing all the babies, everywhere, without exception!" so I seem like a lunatic, instead of addressing what I'm actually saying.

The problem is that what I'm saying has already come to pass. You're not reading a lunatic describing hypothetical doomesday scenarios, but a concerned person who is worried about individual occurrences that can easily become a trend if we don't oppose them on principle.

You see, I care about the principle, and if you care about the principle, you don't wait for x or x+500 cases, because it's wrong the very first time you see it. If that first time is met with swift correction, and the person is freed (or charged, so due process is honored), the people responsible fired or demoted, and a public commitment made to due process, then no, you don't take to the streets decrying a headlong slide into tyranny.

But, when the President and Attorney General of the United States firmly stand by their decision, and repudiate any possible oversight over, or check on this authority, then, well, yes, I'm going to be concerned.

At what point would you consider it a legitimate concern? 10 people? 100? 10,000?

I think you guys should do something before you lose your own country.