The Democrats and "Bush's police state"

I use the term "Bush's police state" because it's the shortest term I can think of for Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, etc. When Bush left office, a lot of us liberals expected the Democrats to reverse all that. But the Patriot Act was reauthorized last May, and there are still a hundred prisoners in Guantanamo, and in general, I don't feel any less spied on than I did when Bush was in office. Who can I blame for this?

If you want a simple answer, blame the terrorists. The state is responsible for keeping its citizens safe, by any means necessary. Of course, whether or not this is playing into said terrorists' hands is another matter...

I don't expect things to magically change from one administration from the next; there's too many variables for every thing we were promised to happen. There's far more than just the president making the decisions.

Of course, being a fairly average person living an average life who doesn't associate with anyone even mildly insurrectionary, I never actually felt spied on. If they're spying on me, something has gone even more terribly wrong than usual, and they're incompetent.

Oh this thread is going to go really well. Parts of this topic look dangerously close to flame bait.

If you want to blame a group, I suppose the easiest place to start would be with the terrorists themselves. The legislation came from a collective feeling of insecurity and vulnerability felt by the United States following the attacks. The idea was not to create what you call a 'police state' but to genuinely aid in the security of the nation.

I guess you could blame human nature as well. Whatever makes you happy.

edited 28th Sep '11 6:45:58 PM by Pentadragon

Even pre-9/11, I always just assumed the American government was doing illegal wiretaps and other forms of spying on its own citizens. Maybe not on as large a scale, but I'm sure it still happened.

As far as I understand it, Obama did plan to shut down Guantanamo Bay initially. Of course the problem then came on where all the prisoners kept there were meant to go. No state wanted anything to do with it, so he had to put his plans on hold.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know that much about US policy. I just remember hearing that one tidbit.

1 > The American people. when Obama planned to transfer detainee to Mainland, there is a lot of protest, even on liberal and democratic states, even when they live next to maximum security prison. Americans seems to think terrorist have superpowers. The un-cancellation of TSA and Patriot Act are also because if Obama did cancel, and they are terrorist attack (even failed one like Underpants Bomber) Americans will blame Obama government.

2 > The press. American press, not only Fox News, blow up terrorist threat immensely. even failed terrorist plot get hours and hours of talks on TV.

3 > Security-Industrial Complex. maker of secure room, private security consultation agency, dog bulletproof armor, etc profit immensely because of government contract and continue to lobby for more security measure.

Mostly you can blame our own lack of sense of scale.

Most efforts at foreign terrorism are either obvious enough for the DHS to get a bead on right away (see the attempted Portland Christmas bombing), or get past heavy-but-inept/feckless security with stupid ease and get stopped by bystanders (see attempted plane bombings) because there's always a fairly obvious way around security. The fact that we haven't been bombed up and down for the past ten years straight should tell you how spectacularly few of "them" there really are.

Statistically, it would be more fruitful to make a similar crusade against bathtubs or mountain goats.

edited 28th Sep '11 7:56:38 PM by Pykrete

US security efforts are stupidly pointless temporary efforts that weren't even implemented properly. Obama repeals them, and if there's another attack, the Republicans nail him to the 9/11 cross. Guantanamo Bay isn't being shut down because of NIMBY...

I always hated bathtubs.

I think the problem here isn't so much a group but the system and the... I'll call it "social impetus" of terror legislation. Once you have terror legislation, it becomes very difficult to remove. You've lowered the public's psychological bar for it (the events of 9/11 made every feel insecure and accept draconian measures) even after the need for it has passed. Legislators that put it into place are still there and American voters are very fickle about "flip-flop", no matter how wrong a piece of legislation was. In fact, while you might say "WOW WEE OBAMA IS IN, THE WHOLE GOV IS DIFFERENT!", except elected officials make up not even a fraction of a percent of your entire political system. 99% of the people are exactly the same and if they got into the mode of putting in terror legislation, it's hard to stop or reverse the trend afterwards.

I simply think Obama hasn't acted on this because, judging by the way the Democrats are being nailed to a pole right now by the Republicans, he simply doesn't have the authority and good-will to take such an action.

A democratic leader is only as strong as the regard of the people for him.

edited 29th Sep '11 6:30:27 AM by GameChainsaw

You know, just like with calling a dog's tail a leg (to borrow from Mark Twain), calling the US a police state doesn't make it so.

I suppose hyperbolic rhetoric is par for the course in this forum on the internet when the subject is politics, though.

^ I don't know of a moderate way to phrase it—it's like the "terrorists vs. freedom fighters" thing.

As for the issue of change, I just feel like I ought to care because the current situation is hanging America in the court of international opinion. (I look white at first glance, and I'm not a Muslim, so I'm not likely to be arrested for anything.)

edited 30th Sep '11 12:53:45 AM by feotakahari

The Democrats are moderately right-wing and the Republicans are outrageously right-wing. Why would you ever expect Guantanamo to be closed and the Patriot Act repelled, when there are no left-wing politicians to argue for it?