Talk:Police state/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Inclusion of the US

I think that the remarks on the US are going overboard. This is a discussion of police states in general, not of the Bush administration's policies. David.Monniaux 14:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I'm about as big of a critic of this administration as they come, but I see no compelling reason to include the US under GWB as an example of an 'alleged police state'. I'm going to give this some time for discussion, but if there is no compelling reason to leave it I am going to consider that line for removal. As it stands, it only hurts the credibility of the article in question. I could reasonably see some information regarding current US policy in a more complete and contextual article, but given the nature of the article as it stands it is simply inappropriate IMO.

Wouldn't the picture of the Department of Justice be more appropriate in a section on the Department of Justice (or possibly the US Patriot Act). The picture seems to imply that the US is a police state which I believe would not be in the NPOV. Maybe a picture of a historic building of the Stasi would be more appropriate (although I don't know enough about the Stasi to know objectively if they had created a police state). I am fairly inexperienced here, so I could use an explanation of why the picture is or is not NPOV. --Techieman 06:36, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems that although the paragraphs regarding the US have been cut, the picture was left in. I'm removing it. porge

That's unfortunate. That picture was way cool and really gave a "police state" feeling. Can't we keep it? --Shibboleth 05:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I took the picture, its a real picture. Im not implying that the US is a police state. Think of the picture as a description of what a police state is, rather than something that says the US is or is not a police state. I took a trip to DC, and while I was there we walked by the US DOJ building. The entire building was surrounded by this barbed wire fencing. Then I saw what was carved on the building. Whether the US is a police state or not is irrelevant. This picture shows a representation of what a police state FEELS like. Justice is cut off from the populace by the state. Leave the picture in, but without a caption of what the building is. Theon 17:32, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

"The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. . . . The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one. There were no windows in it at all. Winston had never been inside the Ministry of Love, nor within half a kilometre of it. It was a place impossible to enter except on official business, and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons."

Unfortunately since the inscription is in English, an attentive reader will guess even without a caption that the building is probably in the United States or Britain, and may well reasonably think we are implying that one of those countries is a police state. I understand what you're saying, but the only way to make that clearly understood to readers would be to add a disclaimer to the caption. e.g. "This picture is only meant to give the feel of a police state, and does not come from an actual police state." That's not really acceptable, so I guess we're left with no choice but to remove the picture. Regrettable, since it was a great picture, but NPOV trumps everything else. I hope it can be used in some other article, though. --Shibboleth 04:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Economics meaning

In economics, a Police State is one whose only intervention in the economy is the creation of laws and rules which help the market structure. Shouldn't this be added to the article?

Removal of categories

I've removed three categories from the article, on the basis that 'Police state' isn't part of any of them (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, for example, might be said to fall under the category of Police State, but not vice versa). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alas, the article as it now stand, has become very thin. Some discussion of 19th police-states (Tsarist Russia, for example, and also France and the monarchies of Central Europe) would be useful. It seems that in many parts of Europe political policing is as old as the beginnings of modern policing itself. At what point does a state with a political police become a police-state? JohnC

A Problem

Alas, the article as it now stand, has become very thin. Some discussion of 19th police-states (Tsarist Russia, for example, and also France and the monarchies of Central Europe) would be useful. It seems that in many parts of Europe political policing is as old as the beginnings of modern policing itself. At what point does a state with a political police become a police-state? JohnC

Adding supposed examples

To avoid editors adding the names of states they don't like, could they propose them here first, giving reasons for their proposals? I've just removed Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria; to the best of my knowledge, whatever one might say against these three, none of them is a police state. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Victims of police states

The (tidied up) text, which I've moved here, was:

Some victims of repression have become well known; examples include:
* Dario Fo's wife, Franca Rame, was raped on March 9 1973 by a neo-fascist gang on orders from the Italian carabinieri. The facts were proved only after twenty-five years, when the statutory terms were expired, and no one could be indicted.

Is this section useful? It seems open-ended and pretty dubious to me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

North Korea and Ancient Rome

Ancient Rome, particularly after the fall of the Senate and the rise of the Caesars and Emperors, may well have been the first Police State in history, and should likely be mentioned here. Also, North Korea carries many if not all of the characteristics of an Atheist Police State, and should likely also be mentioned. --Lucavix 17:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Reworking

This is to explain some of the changes that I made to the page. First, I added a long section on the history of "police state", which was based largely on the German edition of this article. Second, I removed the section entitled "examples." This was simply begging for everyone to nominate their pet police state to the list. Interesting examples might be added to the history section (I discuss the US-USSR exchange of "no, you're a police state" there), but I'm not sure how many examples might be useful.

As to nitpicking:

• Imperial Rome might be a police state in one sense (i.e., it wasn't liberal), but it was by and large characterized by the rule of law. All the lawful imperia just happened to be concentrated in one man. It was not, however, a time of jack-booted thugs, and the major legal reforms which became the basis of the civil law tradition occurred under it.
• Saying that police states speak in terms of "terrorism" and "terrorists" is historically inaccurate. Insisting that this is true is just a way to violate NPOV.
• Putting the USA Patriot Act, US government offices, etc., also willfully contemns NPOV.
• While enlightened absolutism was an alternative to the divine right of kings, linking "police state" with atheism is probably going a bit too far, even if we consider North Korea to be just an atheistic form of a police state.

-- RJC ^Talk 04:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

addendum I've removed a restored reference to the US and GB. First, can the claim be stated while avoiding weasel terms? Which is to say, If the source of this opinion is identified, is that source one that we would take as authoritative regarding what constitutes a police state? Second, the fact that some people may think that the US is becoming a police state may be true: but does this in any way tell the reader anything about what a police state is? Does the addition of this example clarify the article? Or does it only state the editor's view of the US (and GB)? The fact that this statement might be related to the content of the article does not make it appropriate for the article: I might think that Run-D.M.C. is noise — many discerning people think so — but does mentioning in the article on noise that many people consider Run-D.M.C. to be noise sound like an encyclopedia?. --RJC ^Talk 04:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with not allowing the US to be mentioned. It does NOT violate NPOV as it doesn't state it as fact. Whenever there is a large amount of support behind an opinion, it should be included in the Wiki, whether people happen to agree with it or not. The comparison has a lot of support and so long as it isn't state as fact, it's not POV. For support for this view, a simple search for "patriot act" + "police state" will suffice. Whether it's a comforting thought or not, a lot of evidence backs this view. I also think it deserves inclusion here because Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. This article serves a larger purpose then merely informing people of the meaning. Modern societies that have been compared to Police States are relevant here. EDIT: [1] Excellent source, straight from an official US site no less. -- Harpalus

What I gather from your source is that not even Ron Paul thinks the USA is a police state, though he worries it may be moving in that direction...--Dell Adams 08:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Harpalus, I have no doubt that a lot of people think that the US is (or is becoming) a police state. That is not enough for its inclusion in an article to be NPOV. The relevance of that fact to the article may depend entirely on a POV. Again, it is perfectly true that a lot of people consider Run-D.M.C. to be noise. It is a fact. But putting this fact in the article on noise violates NPOV. How is this case different? --RJC ^Talk 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to a "Run-D.M.C.?" From what I can gather, they're a hip-hop music group, but they seem to have little to do with America becoming/being a police state. -- Harpalus

Ah, how old I feel. Run-D.M.C. was indeed a band (though I think they're still releasing albums). I was making an analogy. Many people criticized them as not being musicians, stating that their music was just noise. Some people call the U.S. a police state. Making reference to this opinion in the police state article, however, even though limited only to a statement of verifiable fact, is no less the advancement of a POV than making reference to the opinion about Run-D.M.C. in the article on noise. If you accept the impropriety of one, you must accept the impropriety of the other, or show the analogy to be flawed. --RJC ^Talk 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(Run-D.M.C. stopped performing in 2002 on the death of Jam Master Jay. --Dell Adams 02:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC))

I accept your analogy for the most part, except that the articles are in two very different categories. People reading the article on "noise" would not be likely to find "examples" of noise helpful. People reading the article on a Police state, however, would likely find accusations of being a police state helpful. A reference to Run-D.M.C. in the noise article would not serve any useful purpose, whereas persons researching Police state would find the reference to America, and other countries who have been compared to one useful, as the meaning of "police state" refers not only to a government model, and is far more importance then an accusation of "noise" against a band.

Newbish question. Is there a simple way to append the time and date? -- Harpalus

A fellow newbie! Harpalus, if you sign your comment with four tildes (~) instead of three, the time and date are appended. As to the question at hand, if there's some important meaning of "police state" that the article as revised by RJC doesn't capture (since, as you rightly say, it "refers not only to a government model"), by all means add it--and if the USA and UK are really the best examples of that meaning, or even just clear examples, by all means adduce them. But isn't it true what RJC says at the end of the present edit, that "in non-scholarly usage, however, it is something of a bogeyman, summoned to represent all that is feared and/or hated concerning a particular regime"? And do purported examples really help where a term is so abused?--Dell Adams 22:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

An afterthought, too: in the article as written, the USA is already the only extant regime against which any accusations of police-statehood are noted.--Dell Adams 22:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition

This is a slightly different definition of a police state to the ones presented in the main article.

"The defining characteristic of a police state is that the police exercise power on behalf of the executive and the conduct of the police cannot be effectively challenged" Mr Von Doussa [2]

I prefer this one because it's specific and it explains the sometimes subtle distinction between a dictatorship and a police state.

What do people think?

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reworking

I have used a definition of the police state as per "The Penguin English Dictionary".

Much of the repetition, I have removed.

The discusion of liberalism, I have trimmed.

Extra section headings, I have added.

The long list of See Also I have trimmed. Most are referenced in the text. The others can be reached through the references that remain, expect perhaps van Vogt. (Why was he in the list?)

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1. The definition is fine (so long as it's not too close to the dictionary).
2. I haven't had time to check the nature of the repetitions; this has been a controversial article, so don't be surprised if someone objects.
3. The same for liberalism.
4. Wikipedia:Use subheadings sparingly
5. I've removed the rather surprising misdescription of Hobbes (for whom the purpose of the sovereign is to maintain the covenant by protecting each of his subjects against the others), corrected some typos, wikified a date, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for improving my improvements.  :-) Ben Aveling 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"the United States of America, especially under George W. Bush" - a good example of a police state?

Hey guys. It seems to me that this article loses some of its credibility by basing the listed examples on anti-conservative or specifically anti-Bush sentiments. Surely there are less arguable and more self-evident examples of what one might define as modern-day police states? Even if "the United States of America - especially under George W. Bush" is to remain in the list of "good examples" of this particular phenomenon, it would certainly give this article a huge boost if the other examples are not taken from the history books, thus making it look like the authors of this article simple were unable to think of any other good example than "the United States of America - especially under George W. Bush". Perhaps our readers will take this article a bit more seriously. Just a thought here... ;] //Big Adamsky 18:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That contributor has recently been blocked for vandalism; I think you caught the article on a bad curid. :P -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this has gotten worked out. If anyone were interested in adding information concerning trends in modern liberal states that they feel constitute a creeping police state, I could possibly see that handled properly... so long as it isnt done in a specifically partisan matter. For example mentioning British plans for mandatory ID cards, British plans to actively track car travel, National ID proposals in the US, wiretapping issues, etcetera. Current events issues shouldnt be completely removed, but it must be done in a very careful and impartial manner. Rosensteel 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• *United States under the U.S. Government. Many have accussed America of being a police state. Rap duo Dead Prez made a song titled "Police State", describing the United States.

Whether or not it is heading in that direction, the US is not (yet) a police state. Dead Prez saying so isn't sufficient grounds to include it under a section about actual police states. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, when looking at actions taken by the current administration it comes close to the definition of a police state. Although I agree international organisations and politicians are unlikely to ever describe the US in this manner. --Nomen Nescio 04:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly some questionable actions (eg Bush claiming he is above the law, gitmo, illegal wire taps, etc). But I think that in the main, the rule of law still holds. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are serious or merely unwilling to look at the facts. 1 The US administration is violating the Geneva Conventions, 2 The US administration is violating the United Nations Convention Against Torture, 3 The US administration is at this time trying to deny every detainee in the war on terror Habeas corpus, 4 The US administration is screening numerous US citizens and organisations, among which many involved in political and human rights actions. 5 There are serious allegations regarding the legallity of the 2000 and 2004 elections. (see voting machines debate in Ohio, and recent revelations pertaining discarded ballots in 2000)

Of course, there are many more examples but I would think this suffices to show actions that can also be seen in police states. As to point 1, 2 and 3, they clearly demonstrate the rule of law does no longer apply. --Nomen Nescio 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Apart from all the criticism above, the U.S. doesn't belong here simply because the article asserts that police states are totalitarian, that there is no rule of law and that police conduct cannot be challenged. The U.S. in general, whatever objections may be raised about executive conduct and review in some cases, simply doesn't fit this description in any way. On the contrary, the judiciary regularly keeps overruling the executive, and the executive obeys court rulings. -- Sandstein 09:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely correct, as can be seen in the current debate surrounding the Unitary Executive theory. And it clearly contradicts the facts presented above concerning violation of US and international law.--Nomen Nescio 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Sandstein. Even if the Executive were immune from prosecution that does not mean he can do anything he wants, which is pretty much the requirement for a police state. Including anything about the US here is just silly. DJ Clayworth 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If he is immune from prosecution, what is keeping him from braking the law? More to the point, it is the rationale behind the FISA controversy, violating the Convention against torture, violating the Geneva Convention, et cetera. He already broke the law and is not held accountable.-- Nomen Nescio 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, and just for starters, the fact that he can be removed from power. Presidents can be impeached, as recent history has shown. For a second that his underlings may refuse to obey an illegal order. For a third, the fact that the legality of such actions is being debated by the courts - i.e. he can only break the law if the law allows him to do so! The question is not whether there is no rule of law, the question is whether the commander-in-chief can legally do some things that would be illegal if done by other people. DJ Clayworth 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough you must have missed the duplicity towards impeachment. While a blowjob resulted in an aggressive attack, this President has done numerous things that are more "impeachment-material" than a blowjob. Meaning, with Republicans in control of both Houses I think impeachment will never happen, even if it was warranted. And we know there are several incidents that would certainly have resulted in impeachment if the President was Clinton.

As to obeying an order, you of course are aware of all the critics who have been demoted or fired. We can name scientists, or military. Those who oppose this administration are punished, and people know it. Besides, they (and the rest of the world) are presented a relentless cascade of statements in which this government stresses everything they do is legal (we do not torture and if we do it is legal under the Commander in Chief routine, the President is not bound by any FISA law, we do not kidnap, et cetera).

The legality is not debated by courts and the question is why? Who is investigating the allegation of torture? Who is investigating how and why the facts presented as arguments for invading Iraq were totally wrong? Who is investigating if this administration is violating international law by invoking the unlawful enemy combatant status? Last, why are detainees unable to fight their detention in court. Meaning, why is Habeas corpus revoked? All this leads to the conclusion that legal challenges to this administration are almost impossible.

If the Commander in Chief is allowed to break the law, one has to ask; what law can he not break?-- Nomen Nescio 22:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be wrong. It appears that the legal question is being asked - is it legal for the President to do these things? That's not the same as investigating torture. Your point about impeachment is irrelevant. The fact remains that Bush could be impeached if the political will was there to do it. The choice by legislators not to do so no more implies that police appression is taking place than if you were to complain that you were being oppressed because a majority of people boted for a government you didn't like.

what law can he not break? A good question, which you are entitled to ask, but until you can show that the answer is 'none' then you haven't show the US to be a police state. DJ Clayworth 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Laws broken: 1 Convention against torture 2 US War Crimes act of 1996 3 FISA, true, there is now an investigation 4 Geneva Conventions (which is a violation of point 2) Indictments: none. Why?

You are correct, except Human Rights organisations and many countries around the world (Europe!) -BTW I can provide a myriad of articles explaining the legal reasoning behind it should you want to look at it-, nobody asks if all this is legal. However, it was not my intention to suggest the US is a police state. I merely wanted to show that those editors insisting on mentioning the US do have a point.-- Nomen Nescio 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My only point here is to decide what goes in the article. If you are not suggesting that the US is a police state then there is no point in mentioning them in this article. We can take the stuff out and get on with something useful. I'm not trying to defend the Bush administration's record on freedom and human rights, just trying to agree on what goes in the article. DJ Clayworth 01:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Flamebait reverts

I've reverted two assertions:

• the inclusion of Singapore: this is maybe an authoritarian state, but hardly a totalitarian police state.
• the Unitary Executive theory link; the implied assertion is that this theory aims at establishing a police state. This assertion is unsupportable.

Sandstein 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For those following the debate it is evident that a radical view of the Unitary Executive holds that the President is above the law. There is a clear similarity with a police state. Saying it is unsupported can only mean the editor has not read the numerous comments on the subject. I'll revert. Sincerely.--Nomen Nescio 09:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, no; the UE theory holds at most that the POTUS isn't bound to obey laws that are unconstitutional because they infringe -- according to the theory -- on the President's constitutional powers to e.g. organise the Executive or to conduct war. Nobody argues that the POTUS is above constitutional laws, or the Constitution itself (including the Bill of Rights). Your point is taken re: super-duper-war-powers => police state, but there is a difference between the UE theory and practical widespread disregard of civil rights, which doesn't take place. I've differentiated the link accordingly. --- Sandstein 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my view. I like the way you reworded it. Nevertheless, I feel the need to correct you. Your interpretation is of course correct, but my argument is that it might not be the only way to look at it. More to the point, the aggressive stance of Yoo et al might be that the Constitution itself warrants the President unique discretion in interpreting and applying the law. In effect, they claim, the Constitution says since the President is the law, logic dictates, he can not break the law. This brings us to the fact that by adopting this position the President can do things he sees fit ("overrule"), even if this is contrary to the letter of the law, which would prohibit such an action. (i.e War Crimes Act of 1996, United Nations Convention Against Torture, Habeas Corpus, FISA, et cetera).

A more detailed explanation can be found in the article itself and here.--Nomen Nescio 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible additions?

• Argentina under the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional from 1976 to 1983
• Chile under Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990

I thought I would ask here, as adding examples seems to be controversial. --Tabor 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I cleaned up some of Winstonsmith's recent rapid-fire edits, but someone who's more of an expert may want to examine the Turkmenistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia additions/subtractions. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Dispute Explanation

The inclusion of Cuba as a contemporary police state is quite dubious. While the regime of Cuban President Fidel Castro has seen basically uninterrupted power since the 1959 revolution, there is little evidence to support the contention that Cuba is a police state, by the article's own definition, i.e.

" A police state is a totalitarian state regulated by secret police; the police exercise power on behalf of the executive and the conduct of the police cannot be effectively challenged.

In such regimes there is no significant distinction between the law and the will of the executive; there is no rule of law."

For example, Cuban police power is actually quite limited, with respect to most states that have been and would be considered police states by most mainstream contemporary political scholars. Unlike the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Syria, and Singapore, the government of Cuba does not conduct wiretaps of phones or e-mail, nor do they currently subscribe top any other form of domestic mass surveilance. Use of the internet is generally unrestricted by the Cuban government, as is access to most other information. Also, the Cuban goverment does not have the authority to conduct warrantless searches, or make warrantless arests, in fact Habeas corpus is an integral part of the Cuban arraignment process. These standards of Rule of Law, are usually fairly well adhered to by the Cuban police. While there is some serious alleged suppression of dissident activity, it is sanctioned by the Cuban Constitution and is usually carried out in response to arguably real threats to Cuba's National Security, e.g. the organisation of armed militias, often advocating the overthrow of Fidel Castro and the installation of a regime freindly to foreign investment interests and greatly increased social stratification.

Furthermore, while Cuba's current government is exceptionally longstanding, and a de facto (not de jure) one party state, it is not by any means unique among modern nations in these characteristics, especially those not considered police state, e.g. Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morroco, Libya, Russian Federation and many others, possibly even Sweden (the social democrats have ruled virtualy without interruption since 1932). On a purely factual basis, these characteristics alone do not meet most accepted scholarly criteria for Cuba to be seriously and accurately considered a police state.

It is therefore my request that the inclusion of Cuba as a police state be considered for removal from this article. --Winstonsmith

Uh, you mean to argue that the United States is a police state while simultaneously claiming that Cuba is not one? --Nlu (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Winstonsmith. Cuba in its current form does not meet any of the criteria for consideration to be a police state, it should be removed. Also I think that the section entitled United States Controversy, should be expanded and improved, as this is becoming a pivitol issue of interest in current years regarding the definition of a police state, as it has been historically assumed that police states could not occur in western democracies. --Tisquantum

The claim that the Cuban government does not "have the authority to conduct warrantless searches, or make warrantless arrests" is, I'm sorry, a disingenuous one. The Cuban government grants its citizens a plethora of rights on paper, but does not uphold those rights -- which mirrors Winstonsmith's opinion that the United States is a police state, but only far worse. It's entirely disingenous to claim that Cuba is not a police state while claiming that the United States is. --Nlu (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this article makes no assertion that the United States is a police state, only that some lawyers have criticized resent actions as being police state like, also your assertion that the cuban government has such broad powers is factually inaccurate, harboring anti-cuban sentiments is no legitamate reason to change information egarding its status, i feel that would be an outright abuse of power. I'm sorry to say but i feel i have noticed an anti-socialist bias on the part of some articles recently. this is strongly in conflict with wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Also, your assrtion that cuba "grants its citizens a plethora of rights on paper, but does not uphold those rights" could be said about virtually any existing nation today, as we have seen with the recent suppresion of dissident movements in Europe, The Americas, many Asian countries and elsewhere. Claiming that Cuba goes beyond these standards, is dubious and unsupported by the facts. if you disagree, just read wikipedia's own article on Cuba or compare Amnesty international's report on human rights violations in Cuba with there report on the United States. i'm afraid you'll find that their criticisms of the United States are actually harsher than those of cuba. Pushing an arbitrarily Pro-American Anti-Cuban POV, while ignoring real issues about the U.S. is in your words very "disingenuous".

--TIsquantum

An anti-socialist bias would be against policy, as would a pro-socialist bias.

The first question is, in Cuba, do the police do what the law says, or is the law what the police say it is? I'll leave that one to someone more familiar with Cuba to answer.

The second question is, in America, do the police do what the law says, or is the law what the police say it is? I think we are agreed that the US, like most western countries, mostly follows rule of law and occasionally doesn't, and may be getting worse. But how to say that in a way which belongs in an encyclopedia? That is, neutral and concrete. Because the current section isn't - it has a grain of truth but it sounds like a soap box rant. IMHO of course. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify certain aspects of the discussion. In the section examples Winstonsmith has been deleting Cuba and Iraq, and inserted the US as police state, which can be seen here. As to the US, at this point in time it is not a police state. For Cuba to be deleted, we need more input from editors who are better informed than I am.-- Nomen Nescio 08:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/americas/index.do &http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/cub-summary-eng: Main items appear to be Guantánamo and rendition.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng &http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/cuba/reports.do Main item appears to be 71 prisioners of conscience.

Neither is entirely pleasant, but America's bad behaviour mostly seems to be aimed at non-citizens, if that makes a difference. Pending more information, I do not support removing Cuba from this list. I am not opposed to a discussion of the USA, but the current text is not appropriate. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with you about the article, ben, although perhaps i differ in that i think the current section is somewhat balanced, it definitely needs to be improved and expanded, perhaps a seperate sub-article should be written concerning this, with proper citation of sources and external links. also, as a journalist I have traveled and lived in Cuba and was rather shocked to find that as far as i couls see, many of the claims by some western media sources regarding Cuba's alleged human rights abuses were simply untrue or grossly exaggerated. i hope the administrators of the english wikipedia, will acknowledge this potential problem of bias and behave as upholders of the facts, rather then defenders of western civilisation.--Tisquantum

Interestingly, much of the criticism in the Cuba report is focused on ill effects of the U.S. imposed embargo, also while 40+ prisoners were on death row in Cuba last year, none were executed. In the United States of America 59 citizens were executed in 2005. in addition more than 40+ charged but not convicted U.S. citizens were killed by police tasers.

I think these reports, if read with a neutral and open mind, shed much light on the facts.

--tisquantum

I have tried improving and polishing up the section on U.S. Controversy. I hope it will satisfy everyone for the time being. Also if there are any suggestions on how this section article could be improved or expanded, (or any other part of the article for that matter), i would be very happy and willing to take suggestions at this time. Thanks.--WinstonSmith

Editorial

This is turning into a column opposing the Bush administration's policies. Although there is sufficient cause to warrant mentioning these objections to the Bush administration, I fail to see why this article would be the place to do it. It is about the police state and not policies of any administration in particular. This elabaoration is not supported by logic nor wikipedia policy. Please, do not turn this into a soapbox, and consider inserting these assertions in the article Bush administration.-- Nomen Nescio 09:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While I dont agree with everything said by WinstonSmith and Tisquantum I do think the current Human rights record of The U.S. is more than unsavory enough to merit it if not being placed on the list of police states, at least being mentioned in this article. This is not in any way a reflection of my personal opinion of the U.S. or any particular administration, it's just based on my scientific consideration of concrete facts. Judging by the other responses on this discussion bord, it looks like most other wikipedia users concur.

Also Nomen Nescio's recent rant about this disscusion turning into a soapbox is rediculous. Obviously this user is trying to enforce a pro-bush POV, which is against all the policies that make this free encyclopedia great. All I have to say is if you're going to discuss facts seriously, please remain neutral, and keep your silly conspiracy theories to yourself. It's just innapropriate.

That's my 2 cents.--FaithfulCamp

First, you might want to read something about ad hominem attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and WP:NPOV.

Second, it is evident history knows numerous police states. One might think of Russia under Joseph Stalin, Cambodia -(Democratic Kampuchea)- under Pol Pot, Romania under Nicolae Ceauşescu, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, North Korea under Kim Jong-il (among others), Iraq under Saddam Hussein, et cetera. For some reason, none of these is discussed, but the US has to be included. This constitutes inbalance at best. So, dear editors, feel free to also write some paragraphs about recognized police states.

Third, I do not object mentioning the US as possible future candidate, but it is starting to look as if the entire article is about the opinion regarding the US. To prevent that happening I made the observation I did.-- Nomen Nescio 11:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The US is a Police State, This should not be in dispute.

In defense of everything said by TIsquantum and Winstonsmith id like to go a step further, and ask that the United States be put into the list of alleged police states. I should know, I live in the U.S. the human rights abuses are astounding, recently someone I knew was jailed for nonviolently protesting the Iraq War. Every day countless journalests are threatened by the U.S.government for publishing articles critical of administration policy. Students as young as five years old are forced to stand before the U.S. flag and pledge their allegiance. Recently a friend of my sister's who was involved in a peace action group dissapeared off the face of he earth after getting a call from the Department of Homeland Security telling her she was under investigation.In all likelyhood the U.S. government is wiretapping my phonelines, and watching me post this edit. This should not be in dispute. The U.S. is a Police state.-- FreedomofSpeech

If you have statements by Human Rights or other international organisations that support that claim, we can include it. In the absence of such "evidence" we should stick to the facts: at this time it is not a police state.-- Nomen Nescio 10:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll second Nescio - since User:winstonsmith was blocked, there seems to be a sudden plethora of editors/sockpuppets whose sole function on wikipedia is the need to call the US a police state in this article so I think I'll beef up the numbers on the other side. Without proper evidence to show that it's a police state as defined in the article the US should either not be here, or should be marked as a controversial inclusion. It certainly shouldn't be the focus of this article -Aim Here 11:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We aim to please. I've marked it as controversial, and tried to take out most of the weasel words and the bits that aren't substantiated. It's a lot shorter, if nothing else. Over to you. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Tisquantum 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the article, Tisquantum. it sickens me how recently some Wikipedia editors have been hijacking the use of this encyclopedia to try do advance a racist political agenda. from all the evidence i've seen, especially the Amnesty international report on human rights abuses, it looks like the United States clearly reflects this article's definition as a possible police state.

It is good to see that some editors here care about upholding the facts.--FaithfulCamp 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to provide the statements I asked for earlier. I still have to see the first (newspaper) article mentioning the US as a police state.

Sockpuppet

I think there is potential that FaithfulCamp is a sockpuppet. (S)he joined very recently, and the only contributions listed are on this talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FaithfulCamp. (I apologize if this is not the correct or polite way to say that someone thinks another user is a sockpuppet. I've never done it before.) Sophy's Duckling 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for FreedomofSpeech. See his/her contributions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FreedomofSpeech. Again, I'm sorry if this is the wrong way to go about it or if I am wrong in my suspicion. Sophy's Duckling 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And by "very recently", I mean "today." Sophy's Duckling 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A CheckUser request has been filed, hopefully we'll have an answer in a day or two. However the extremely similar userpages between them and Tisquantum make me very suspicious, enough to treat this as a WP:3RR if it continues. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sophy's Duckling 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Tisquantum removed the suspicions about sockpuppetry is in itself suspcious as well. Sophy's Duckling 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know the result of the request? Or else how long will it take?-- Nomen Nescio 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No result yet. Seems to be a backlog of a week or two. Remember also that there is no rule against using multiple accounts, so long as it is not an attempt to evade a block/3RR/vote multiple times/etc. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

FaithfulCamp, Tisquantum, and FreedomofSpeech are sockpuppets. There is no result on whether VinnyCee or WinstonSmith are related at all. Sophy's Duckling 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Police States in Literature

The combine do not appear in the original Half-Life. They invaded earth after the Black Mesa incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.235.102.2 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-30 12:24:56 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Source for the US

Please provide a reputable source that describes the US as a police state. DTC 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A reputable source is provided, see links at bottom of page.

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If you disagree with something on a page, discuss it on the talk page, please don't simply blank the page. Also please don't remove large amounts of the page. Discuss things you disagree with on the article's talk page before making major changes.

-- Tisquantum 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So HRW is calling the US a police state in its report? Funny I did not read that in there. DTC 20:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I see very little reason to diverge from what is written on the top of the page. If you really cannot refrain from it, you can mention that some particular people say that the USA are a police state, and that they back their claims on authoritarian tendencies as highlighted in reports of Amnesty or Human Right Watch; but flatly saying that the USA are a Police State, beyond being inflammatory and a very minority point, is an exageration which weakens the criticism against actual police states, which I find something in between ill-advised and obscene. Rama 20:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

quite to the contrary, while the neutral NGO Human Rights Watch does not flatly state in its report that the USA is a police state, its report remains deeply critical of ongoing human rights abuses in the USA.

Also,please note that the article in its current revsion does not make the allegation that the USA is a police state, it only mentions it it a separate section entitled "United States Controversy". This creates the impression that there is much disagreement over whether or not the USA is or should be considered a police state, which is an accurate indication of public opinion, and a reflection of the contraversy which is erupting among Wikipedia editors on this discussion board. I see no such problem with the article in its current form.

Furthermore, i Expect to see some more civility and respect for the facts, on this discussion board, it is especially dissapointing to see, loaded words and inaccurate statements coming form administrartors. This is clearly an abuse of administrator power.

-- FreedomofSpeech 20:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you see "abuse of administrator power" there, I am not surprised that you should consider the USA a police State; I will not ask you what words you use for coutnries like Saudi Arabia. I would like to remind you that you have ways of recourse in real cases of problems with an administrator [3]. Rama 13:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

an issue of consideration:

"* The Unitary Executive theory in U.S. law, which, according to many constitutional scholars, could be used to justify police-state-like actions in the context of the so-called War on Terrorism. This has sparked much intense debate in the U.S. and is part of the ongoing controversy surrounding the recent supreme Court nomination of justice Samuel Alito. It should also be noted that an increasing number of legal experts have made the contention that many provisions of new laws passed by the U.S. Congress during the administration of George W. Bush including but not limited to the USA Patriot Act, have greatly expanded executive authority. According to these scholars the beginnings of a police state have developed in the United States of America. Hovever, many supporters of the U.S. administration have sharply contradicted these claims, and consider these laws to fit well within the framework of the existing U.S. Constitution. Furthermore Many supporters of these laws claim that they are an integral and necessary part of fighting the global war on terror, and that without these protections, the U.S. would be very vulnerable to more terrorist attacks."

This section sounds quite fair and balanced to me, it does not seem to flatly imply that the USA is a police state, just that there is much controversy regarding it's status as possibly one. I think it represents both sides of the argument quite equally although i think it should be improved along with sections about other possible alleged police states e.g. cuba, iraq, turkmenistan, saudi arabia. also i think someone might want to write a similar section / mention the United Kingdom as well, as alot of the behaviours in question are allegedly occuring in that nation also.

I would like to see some better behaviour on the part of editors in this forum. this is an encyclopedia, not a shouting match.

-- FaithfulCamp 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at refactoring the page, but I'm not at all convinced we should be including "potential" police states. WP:NOT a crystal ball, after all, and we're here to report what's shown and written elsewhere, not do our own research. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I like most of what you've done. But these are not even potential police states (except maybe Russia). They may have taken a step or two in that direction, but so far, that's all. That's why I tried to weasle word something about erosion, to show that they have moved in that direction, without claiming that they are police states. We'll get there. Later, Ben Aveling 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of repeated POV pushing, most recently by VinnyCee, I would like to suggest that any addition of the US without providing adequate evidence for that assertion must be viewed as an edit in bad faith. Otherwise known as vandalism. Nomen Nescio 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Requesting unequivocal proof of each claimed "Police State"

This issue is obviously politically charged when nae'blis get's his/her panties in a bunch over the addition of the largest police state in history. I agree with Tisquantum and FreedomofSpeech, sock-puppet or not. I am therefore changing the article to include the United States as a contemporary police state. If unequivocal proof is required for a nation to be listed in the article, then all should be deleted because no evidence has been provided for most of the additions. To simply delete edits because of your own POV (nae'blis) is not logical. -- VinnyCee

It is perfectly ridiculous to equate the USA with Saudi Arabia. By doing this, you negate the very idea of a measurement of the state liberties and democracy in a country, and prevent any form of discussion on these matters. I strongly suggest that you adopt a more measured point of view on this. Rama 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That said, I do deplore that we do not have more developments on other countries than the USA (be it only because it makes the USA more present in this article than countries more "worthy" of the qualificative, a de facto tendentious thing). But this is really not the way to address the matter. Rama 10:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that unequivocal proof has been provided that places like the PRC *are* police states, and that the United States is *not*. There is no debate in China, for instance, about something like the Patriot Act, which is a minor and hotly contested thing compared to the surveillance and censorship most Chinese live under. Sophy's Duckling 18:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vinny. I absolutely agree that we should back up all of our inclusions on this page, however I have yet to see a mainstream source refer to the US as a police state. We could all find examples, I'm sure, of someone somewhere who contests that PRC or NK or Cuba are police states; what I'm after is the general consensus of 'experts' or 'the public' or 'a reasonable person' that the US is now or is becoming a police state (although since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, all of the 'predictive' entries are likely to be removable). That is my point of view on inclusion/exclusion; the other entries here are less problematic right now because they have prima facie appearance of being police states, at least to the general public (the fact that they stand in this article uncontested for a long period of time can be taken as evidence of this, whereas recent additions/subtractions do not). -- nae'blis 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please show me a link to the information that describes the countries listed as being "police states". What constitutes listing as a police state? -- VinnyCee

If you are VinnyCee, please sign in and sign by using ~~~~. If you are not VinnyCee, be aware that forging another person's signature on Wikipedia is considered a serious offense and can lead to your being blocked. --Nlu (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As the article says, "A police state is a totalitarian state regulated by secret police". The USA are not totalitarian. As for the links, there should be links, and perhaps elaborations, about all States listed there; that there are not always is a case for filling this void, not for putting silly claims. Rama 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A signature of "VinnyCee" means exactly what it implies. That the text was entered by me, VinnyCee. As to the POV-pushing and revert wars over the sensible addition of the United States of America as a police state: The article describing what a totalitarian state is clearly describes them as "modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior." There are many who would say that the United States of America is, in fact, regulating nearly every facet of behavior. The article also states that totalitarian states "maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of terror tactics." All of these requirements are present in the United States of America. I have linked to this information at the bottom of the page under "external links". I have yet to see any links providing similar information as to the addition of the other alleged "police states". By no means is the term absolute, hence the sarcasm in this sections heading: Requesting unequivocal proof of each claimed "Police State" -- VinnyCee 08:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reposting a link for Nescio -> *www.prisonplanet.com/ Alex Jones, February 6 2006; Prison Planet] — archive of police state articles compiled by a scholar who contends that The United States of America is now a police state. -- VinnyCee 08:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Prisonplanet surely does not constitute an unbiassed source. Start with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, the UN, et cetera. If these make that claim we can include it.-- Nomen Nescio 08:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read discussion page before squawking about "vandalism"

I have posted links, and arguments in support of the addition. Please actually read the discussion page before accusing one of "vandalism". -- VinnyCee 09:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As you are well aware I did not say you are guilty of vandalism. I merely said some might view your relentless edit war as such.

There is no link/source to show the US is a police state. First, show me a Human Rights or other international organisation that says the same and then we can add you suggestion to the article. No source, no US in the article!-- Nomen Nescio 08:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I do not see any links to Human Rights or other international organizations that proclaim any of the other countries that are listed are police states. By your logic, this means that these countries should not be included either. No source, no country in the article. Otherwise, please edit by your own rules and provide links to these proclimations of police state for the countries listed. -- VinnyCee 08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. As to the other countries, you must be joking when suggesting they are not police states? Anyway, they have been in the article a long time and nobody disputed that. However, the US clearly is debated.-- Nomen Nescio 08:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have provided evidence of the United States of America being a police state. You say I am "joking" when I proclaim such? Surely this is your idea of sarcasm if you were not joking when disputing the addition? There have been many disputes over additions to the list of police states. So you are saying that it is okay to have countries listed as long as {{Fact}} accompanies the listing? I am glad that we could reach an agreement. -- VinnyCee 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add a source to your claim. I still haven't seen it. Furthermore, it is evident most editors disagree with your proposition, read this page. In staed of engaging in a edit war and misstating my words, could you start with providing a source for your claim?-- Nomen Nescio 08:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I support Nomen Nescio. For one thing, the United States government does NOT own or run the media. There have been various scandals in which American officials have bought some reporters or vandalized WIkipedia, but these were regarded as *bad* and, if the gov't really owned the media, why does it have to pay reporters to be biased? Sophy's Duckling 19:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, That is factually inaccurate. There are many who would make the contention that the U.S. Government DOES, albeit indirectly, run the media. What we are seeing in the United States right now as far as press and media freedom goes is a classical example of what happens in a Corporatist Plutocracy, such as Fascist Italy in the 1930's. For Example, All the major television networks which report the news in the U.S. (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Warner Brothers), are owned and run by corporations with ulterior non-news-media-based interests (Disney, Westinghouse Electric Company, General Electric, Rupert Murdoch, AOL Time-Warner, respectively) that wield massive influence in the government. These Parent Companies wield this influence both by "donating" huge campaign contributions to U.S. politicians, and by corporate lobbying on Capitol Hill, as a return favor these news organisations air stories that tow the political line of their paid politicians. Also, Most of the companies that advertise on these networks are also major corporate interests in various industries, (e.g. pharmaceutical companies, military equipment contractors, oil companies, petro-chemical manufacturers, agribusinesses, supermarket and restaurant chains, among many others) whom also wield massive influence over politicians and some of whom often even have former CEO's/Members of the board as various heads of U.S. government departments, including many regulatory agencies. As a result these networks are bullied into a choice of airing only stories that reflect the interests and positions of these parent and sponsor companies, or face the threat of losing crucial advertising money. This leads to a sharply biased media, with a marked decrease in news quality and content, as well as a loss of real political debate in the media. Many of these same things could be said about newspapers as well. The end result of this is a government that is bought and paid for by industrial corporate interests, and a media that reflects these same interests. One could say that in the U.S. that the major Industries control both the government (who reflects their interests in policy making), and the media (who reflects their interests by becoming little more than a meaningless propaganda wing). For more information on this see the website of the non-partisan media watchdog group FAIR (http://www.fair.org/index.php) -- WaynaQhapaq 22:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that the media (a plural noun--a fact always overlooked by the talking heads who roar that "THE MEDIA IS BAISED!") own the politicians, not that the politicians own the media. Even assuming that the belief that General Electric tells my local ABC channel to report in over-sensationalistic, over-simplistic terms is accurate, Americans have choice. Wikipedia, for instance, is not owned by the American government, although there are efforts to make it be regulated by the court system (wikipediaclassaction.org, for instance). Outside of the United States, I can access al-Jazeerah, the BBC, the Sydney Morning Harold, and even North Korean media. I have the freedom to choose, which is what distinguishes the United States from an actual police state. Sophy's Duckling 19:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I note with some amusement that FAIR is an American organization ("We work to invigorate the First Amendment..."). They're not owned by the gov't, are they? Sophy's Duckling 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that is inaccurate. What I am saying is that the Industry/Big Business owns both the politicians and the media, and therefore, the politicians and the media together represent the interests of Corporate Industry. You could say that the U.S. Government and the U.S. Media have a mutually beneficial relationship. The Media reports stories that portray the government in a positive light, and the Government furthers the interests of the parent companies of the Media (and their myriad of corporate sponsors) through policy-making. What results is a corrupt system that is fundamentally anti-democratic, because neither the government nor the media are representing the interests of the people. You mention untraditional sources, such as the Internet and Foreign Media as being other potential sources of information for the American public, this is missing the point. According to studies by the U.S Census Bureau, only 50% of Americans have access to the Internet, and less than 20% have access to televised Foreign Media. Furthermore, access to both of these sources is quite new and often based on income, and most Americans are likely to stick with the traditional sources of information such as newspapers and Network TV news that they trust. Also, under the authority granted by the USA Patriot Act and other intelligence legislation, the U.S. Government has the authority to inquire with ISP's what websites their clients have been looking at. This causes many Americans to feel uneasy about visiting websites that might be deemed "unpatriotic", or "terrorism-related" by the Government, as is the case with similar Government power in China. This has a strong curbing effect to the Internet's potency as a source of free information.

Just for the sake of clearing up some inaccuracies, for whoever else might be reading this, I would like to note the following: A. the term "Media" as I have used it is what is known as a "collective singular" noun (I learned this in elementary school); B. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is an international organization (which is quite evident if you look at their website), and C. General Electric owns NBC, Disney owns ABC (as was clear in my previous statement.) -- WaynaQhapaq 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(1) I do not deny that some corporations own some media. I deny the blatantly false idea that the American federal government owns the media. This means that the United States is NOT a police state, because one of the defining characteristic of police states is that the government per se owns the medium. Period.

(2) The word "media" is not a collective noun. I think you could argue that the media of the Allied Powers in WWII qualified as a collective noun due to the single message they had to deliver (the'yre bad, we're good, and we will win) and the sparsity of competition. Today, however, is a completely different story. The Laura Ingraham show, ABC, FAIR and Wikipedia are discrete entities that deliver different messages. I can't say "The media says" because the media are saying so many different things. Sophy's Duckling 23:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me make something clear, while I find your accusation highly entertaining, I am not attempting to start a "flame war". As is obvious, 95% of my response was focused on pointing out the fact that Media Freedom in the United States is severely limited, and how that fact has broader implications for the U.S's role as a potential modern police state. I did not point out your inaccuracies to discredit you, only to better inform the reader. I am deeply sorry if I have offended you, Dear Sophy, (or your cute little Duckling!). However, because you choose to dispute my corrections, I will address that here: A. This is incorrect, "that the government per se owns the media" is not one of the defining characteristics of a police state. An example: During Italy's Corporatist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini in the 1930's (which I think we all can agree was one of the best examples of a police state in history), the fascist Italian Government did not own the media (radio, newspapers) directly, instead it was entrusted to the care of various privately owned companies, many of whom also owned shares of the Industrial Market (oil, coal, military equipment, steel, et cetera). However because of the mutually dependant relationship that Media Parent Companies (and sponsors) had with Italian politicians (Mussolini, et al), the content of what was aired and published on Italian radio and newspapers, was rarely if ever critical of government policies. B. While I concede that some of the things on FAIR's website may derive from an Ameri-centric viewpoint, as you pointed out, it is essential to understand that this is because the United States is perhaps the largest nation to suffer from corporate media ownership. If you look thoroughly at the organisation's website, you will find that it is clearly an international organisation. and C. I did not plainly state that all uses of the word "media" are a collective noun, I was referring to its use in the sense of "American media" as in my statement, which is not a plural noun.

A. I know you're fairly new to this discussion, and my reply was not posted directly below the statement I was responding to, so here is why I've been arguing about the media: The statement that The article also states that totalitarian states "maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of terror tactics." All of these requirements are present in the United States of America. Since the article involved in this discussion stated that a requirement of the police state is use of state-controlled media, I went with that. On a side-note of curiousity, I could have sworn that the Italian fascist regime ran at least some media. I know I saw about 8 quotes from the "state-run" media (e.g., women's and political-scientific magazines) to encourage child bearing and misogyny the other day. I threw the packet out, so I can't confirm the titles; sorry. :/ What were your sources for saying the media in Italy were not run by the fascists? C. "American media" is, yes, a collective noun. You can say "The American media is located in the United States of America" or "The American media is followed primarily by Americans", but you still can't say "The American media says x y and z" or "The American media is controlled by T3H SUX0RZ CORPORATIOSN!" or "The American media is controlled by the government" (as Vinny Cee claimed) because they're not unified, nor are they all run by corporations, nor are they run by the gov't. I think the best you can manage is "Mainstream Media", used by those in the blogosphere. even there, you have trouble, because The Washington Times is MSM, but it's hardly the same as The Washington Post. Sophy's Duckling 02:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is getting off the subject. The point is this: There is a possibility that the U.S. regime is encroaching on civil liberties and fundamental aspects of democracy to the point where, if not now, then perhaps sometime in the not-too distant future, the U.S. could be considered a corporatist (note that Corporatism is a division of Fascism) police state. As someone with a User Page that explicitly states his/her support of the current American leader George W. Bush, one might wonder whether or not you are letting your own personal views interfere with maintaining a NPOV on this matter. -- WaynaQhapaq 00:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm very POV about the inclusion of America in the article--see my contributions--just I think it should not be included in the list of confirmed police states--it's a very NPOV statement to say that America is not a police state. People like the artist of the comic Candorville might be scared that the NSA is peeping at their google search records (Google, for one thing, says no...though not to the Chinese gov't), but the fact that they are saying that they're scared w/o recrimination does not occur to them. But if it does, Bush drones like me will be safe and part of the budding secret police! MWAHAHAHA. Sophy's Duckling 01:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Recrimination From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In law, recrimination is a defense in an action for divorce in which the accused party makes a similar accusation against the plaintiff. In plain English, it is a lawyer's way of saying "you too." Recrimination was generally considered by family law experts to be one of the most dysfunctional and illogical aspects of the old fault-based divorce system in common law countries. For example, in the context of a marriage where the marital relationship has collapsed to the point that both spouses are openly committing adultery, the assertion by either spouse of this defense would prevent a divorce even though the family unit is clearly no longer capable of functioning"

Just out of curiosity, could you please explain what you meant by recrimination in this context? Also just to clarify, (I think this was a typo on your part, that's ok) outside of a few extremist neoconservative circles, The Washington Times is almost universally derided as a "right-wing rag" or a silly tabloid, and is definitely not considered mainstream media by most serious journalists. After all, the newspaper's owner, Sun Myung Moon, is a self proclaimed messiah ("Heavenly Father"), who leads a radical cult popularly known as "The Moonies" (their official name is the Unification Church) and who most mainstream religious conservatives consider to be a wacky nut-job. The Washington Post on the other hand is usually hailed by critics as a very respectable publication. -- WaynaQhapaq 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the part about recrimination, and I don't give a damn what you think about the Washington Timespost, which has nothing to do with the article we're discussing, so I am going to ignore you now because it's evident you just want a fight. Sophy's Duckling 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why are you so offended? I wasn't trying to get into a fight, just trying to make some some facts clear -- WaynaQhapaq 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I'm not offended--condescension amuses, rather than hurts--I'm exasperated by your continual replies, most of which are tangentially related to what I've said, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the article. Sophy's Duckling 02:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I meant to say "retribution." Malapropsim alert. Sophy's Duckling 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings from VinnyCee's talk page

Now you are accusing me of "removing warnings"? Please explain. -- VinnyCee 09:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You removed the entire examples section and for that I placed a warning on your talk page. That warning is pertinent to your behaviour and should stay on your talkpage.

Once again I removed your warnings from this page, it would be civil of you to keep it that way and not fill this page with your warnings of vandalism.-- Nomen Nescio 09:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Since VinnyCee thinks an edit war is better than a civil discussion we are now in 3 RR territory. I will respect the rule and hope other editors step in and correct this disruptive behaviour.-- Nomen Nescio 09:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are now in 3RR territory, we are both precluded from editing the main page for 24-hours, nice going. I have provided discussion and I thought we had an agreement that the listings are in need of source citations. However, I guess you would rather start an edit war. -- VinnyCee 09:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings from Nomen Nescio's talk page

I placed a warning on your talk page. That warning is pertinent to your behaviour and should stay on your talkpage. Please do not remove it again. -- VinnyCee 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed your vandalism from my page and asked an admin to intervene. Thank you for the entertaining behaviour.-- Nomen Nescio 09:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? I simply warned you against vadalizing this article. You calling my warning to you vandalism is the same as me saying that you are vandalizing my talk page. What gives? -- VinnyCee 09:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you are blocked for this behaviour I would suggest calming down and once again read something about WP:Civility and WP:POINT. Hope we can discuss the US as police state based upon verifiable sources. Sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No more silly additions

Let's have enough of adding countries to this list when they are plainly not. For anyone wishing to add a state to this article please reread the definition of a police state and explain on this page how the one they want to add fulfils the definition. Do this before adding the name to the article. DJ Clayworth 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I for one would like to see more details on why Cuba fits this description. DJ Clayworth 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon 152.*

Your comments about the US are not being removed because we believe that the US is a Police state, they are being removed because they are irrelevant. Explanation of why a country is not a Police state is not relevant, otherwise we would have to add an entry for every 150 or so non-police-state countries in the world. DJ Clayworth 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A partial listing of human rights abuses can be found at Human rights in the United States. This article describes many facets of the police state that is the United States of America. I will add the United States to the list of contemporary police states. Removal of the addition would be simply a POV edit in defense of the police state by people who cannot see past their own ideologies. -- Vinny 12:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

John Yoo

Who decided he is relevent? Can't we include a "See also" section and link to his theory? I mean, I know a lot of people who support the Patriot Act, but before this article, I'd not heard of the Unitary Executive Theory or John Yoo. Can't we say "supporters, including political theorist John Yoo" (just so we don't fall into the trap of saying "some people")? Sophy's Duckling 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the Unitary Executive Theory should be stuck in the see also section. The Patriot Act is not George Bush's creation; it's a series of expansions former laws, written and passed by Congress. Sophy's Duckling 23:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Better?-- Nomen Nescio 23:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. in order to avoid double-linking on the page, I will change "Unitary Executive Theory" to "John Yoo" in the See Also section. :) Sophy's Duckling 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but as it is now it is the result of an edit war with some who feel the need to mention the US. As the talk page shows. This is sort of a compromise.-- Nomen Nescio 23:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

compromise is good. The presently article is longer, better, and more well-supported than it was before the first few rounds of edit war. Sophy's Duckling 23:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the terrorism section

I want to propose quite strongly that the section Response to the war on terrorism is removed. Yes these responses may be bad. Yes they may be seriously infringing on the freedoms of the respective citizens. But no, none of these laws have turned the countries in question into Police states, and if they haven't then the section has no busines being here. It might be fine to add references to articles discussing these measure in 'see also' but not here. There are plenty more real police states that we can talk about in the article without going off on a tangent. DJ Clayworth 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should wait until after we get the results of the Check user request. If we're only dealing w/one person here, it can go. If we're dealing with five or six, then for the sake of consensus, I think we should keep it. Sophy's Duckling 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see it deleted. Nor do I think it belongs here. Nor do I know of any existing page I would want to move it to. In short, I'm real open to suggestions. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could create a page for it. Responses to the war on terror or Restrictions on freedom and the war on terror might work, if those don't exist. DJ Clayworth 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not merge it into War on Terror ? Rama 17:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its own section there, Civil Liberties and the War on Terror? DJ Clayworth 18:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. Ben Aveling 06:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a section there called "Criticism", and most of what we have on this site could work over there, too. Sophy's Duckling 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like the terrorism section to remain in this article because it pertains directly to wether or not the United States of America should be included on the list of contemporary police states. Which it should be. -- VinnyCee 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The United States does not fulfill the requirements as laid down by the article. Sophy's Duckling 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How so? Can you provide facts or evidence that absolve the United States as being a police state? You simply declaring your POV that the United States is not a police state does not prove anything. I have linked to articles proclaiming the United States as a police state. Would you like to refute them? Please post your argument against listing the United States as a police state here before reverting its addition. Thank you. -- VinnyCee 20:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"A police state is a totalitarian state regulated by secret police; the police exercise power on behalf of the executive and the conduct of the police cannot be effectively challenged. In such regimes there is no significant distinction between the law and the will of the executive; there is no rule of law." In the United States, there is rule of law. There are ways to contend the will of the executive. Sophy's Duckling 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was actually me who reverted the addition, and as I explained in my edit summary, I did so because the U.S. is not a totalitarian state. It's fair to say that some (many?) think that the States are heading in this direction, and also that some/many others already refer to the U.S. as a "police state"; but by the definition laid down in the introductory paragraph of this article, and by the criteria given in the totalitarianism article itself, the U.S. does not qualify as a contemporary police state. I think content relating to the U.S. being or becoming a police state belongs more under the terrorism section, as it stands right now, because really what we want to do is explain the reasons why some people refer to the U.S. as a police state. Simply adding them to the list doesn't do the issue justice. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify further, the totalitarianism article states

Totalitarian regimes ... do not tolerate activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals.

and this police state article states

...the police exercise power on behalf of the executive and [their conduct] cannot be effectively challenged.

Neither of these statements hold true for the U.S.: there are plenty of parties and organizations within the country that oppose the current leadership, and there still exists plenty of legal recourse for anyone who feels they have been slighted by the police (or FBI, for that matter). --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

VinnyCee, we understand your point of view. Is there anyone else there who considers that the section in question has a place in this article? Or anyone else who wants to see it gone? DJ Clayworth 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Brave New World?

I want to query the inclusion of Brave New World in this article. Technically I wonder if that is a police state in the way we describe it here. It's a massively socialy engineered state, but is it police-controlled? It's too long since I read it for me to be sure. DJ Clayworth 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The police are called in when "The Savage" destroys the Soma and the Deltas freak out. That is the only specific intervention of the police I can remember, though. Sophy's Duckling 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To my mind that doesn't sound like enough. I fact I don't think there is enough 'dissent' to make the police necessary. I would be for removing it. DJ Clayworth 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll replace it with the dystopia from We, which is legitimately a police state. 24.8.218.140 16:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, Stop Blaspheming Islam and The Prophet!

It is dishonest and disgraceful to consider Saudi Arabia a police state in this article, for it is a Holy place, the site of Mecca, which is Holiest to Islam. I ask you, in the name of respect for my religon to please consider removing Saudi Arabi from the list of "police states". Also, the inclusion of contemporary Iran is rather doubtful, and disgraceful as well. May I remind you that the current republic was borne from a very popular uprising against the brutal and inconsiderate ways of the Shah. Iran's goverment is a parliament elected by the will of the people, and guided by the wisdom of respected Clerics, it is not a police state. As a Persian I fnd this deeply insulting to my heritage. It seems as if this article is singleing out Muslim countries which use Shari'a and are disliked by some in the West because of oil politics. I respectfully request that these issues be considered, and that the article be based more upon real facts than subjective opinions that are biased in favor of supposed Western values.

Why is it that Muslims have no rights anymore in the West. As a Muslim I deeply respect the religious rights of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and all of the world's religions. Why can't the editors of this encyclopedia have the courtesy to do the same. -- Allah-u-Akbar 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[4] Rhobite 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood the article, which (a) defines a police state, and (b) lists states that meet that definition. Some mainly Muslim states have fallen under it because some political aspects of the countries' laws qualify them as police states. While Islam might have something to do with the law, the article concerns itself with the law, not the motivation behind the law. Bear in mind that the article does not criticize "police state", either, and so I hope you will not take offense--the only motive here is to display facts. If the facts themselves are what you find offensive, then there is nothing we can do; Wikipedia does not censor itself because someone finds the material offensive. See here for more information. I hope you find this helpful. Sophy's Duckling 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophy, where are these "facts" that you say prove that X state or nation is a police state? I see no facts presented. Maybe you can bring them to the surface by posting them here with links? -- VinnyCee 18:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite provided one. Go to Amnesty International's site, and read waht they have on Saudi Arabia. 24.8.218.140 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for or against the addition of the United States to the "Contemporary" list

We need a mediation. There are clearly people on both sides of this issue that have valid arguments. We should concentrate our responses to this issue under this heading. Archiving this talk page up to here would also be a wise move. In addition to the one source that I have listed that proclaims that the United States is in fact a police state, I have another article that describes the United States as such. The article states that "At first blush, the United States appears to be the haven for freedom and human rights portrayed in legend, lore, and the propaganda of its school textbooks and media. However, if one can awaken from the drunken stupor induced by America-Soma, or if one happens to be a resident of another nation besides Israel or Great Britain (the only two nations still deluded enough to truly ally themselves with the United States), the many headed hydra of the American Dystopia reveals its truly abhorrent nature." [5] Go to the link for the full article which describes in detail how the United States of America is now truly a police state. -- VinnyCee 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that GlobalREsearch.ca qualifies as a legitimate source. It itself is an opinion piece that does not cite sources. How many Americans genuflect to John Wayne, apple pie, etc.? That article even SAYS that Americans "have a choice." The blogger who wrote that has not been dragged off to the Ministry of Love. Come on and pick up some genuine sources. Sophy's Duckling 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To be accurate Vinny I think there is one person on one side (you) and several people on the other side. I specifically asked above if there was anyone who agreed with you and nobody answered. Feel free to ask for a mediation. I for one will be happy to cooperate. DJ Clayworth 18:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to refute this, Clayworth, but I think I have to agree with Vinny on this. There aren't any sources for any of the states on the list claimed to be contemporary police states, In order for this article to be truly NPOV as opposed to subjective opinion, there must be linked sources with facts provided for this list. Furthermore, If you want to read why I think the US should be at least included in this aricle in its current form, as a potential police state, if not a contemporary one, please feel free to read my earlier edits in this page, in the section entitled "Please read discussion page before squawking about "vandalism"". Also, I must say that if you read the human rights reports curently linked, such as those of Amnesty international, and Human Rights Watch, they are every bit as harshly critical of the United States as they are of most of the countries included in the list of contemporary police states. In fact, Amnesty International even goes so far as to say that the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay "is the Gulag of our times", language that makes a reference back to the Soviet Union in a time when most experts would agree it was definitely a police state. Also the United States has by far the largest prison population in the world, (sadly, it even beats out China) both in absolute numbers, and proportionally. This Includes some who are allegedly prisoners of conscience. While it may look like this discussion is asymetrical, perhaps VinnyCee has more support from the facts than we might think. -- WaynaQhapaq 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is yet another source that provides support for listing the United States of America as a contemporary police state: "The endless war, such a horrible prospect for the rest of us, provided the political glue to transform the United States of America from a liberal democracy to a Straussian totalitarian state." [6] I have yet to see any sources cited that support the delisting of the United States of America from the list of contemporary police states. -- VinnyCee 02:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

More evidence from Wikipedia's own human rights article: "[The United States of America] has also had a long history of legally-sanctioned slavery, and both de jure and de facto racial and ethnic-religious discrimination, and occasional violation of those freedoms, particularly in times of "national security" crisis. In the early 21st century, most notably following September 11 and the ensuing War on Terror, invasions of privacy, intrusive inspections, and questionable detentions under the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as allegations of torture at prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay represent predominant issues.". Read the entire article if you are not yet convinced. -- VinnyCee 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Slavery is, um, illegal. The state governments with Jim Crow laws no longer officially sanction it. The nature of a police state is that such discrimination is officially sanctioned.

"Occasional", I think, is the emphasis of the article. My edits to this article, Police state, cite several other times where civil rights have been violated in times of war. Currently, however, habeas corpus is not suspended and Japanese aren't living in the Nevada desert in ocncentration camps. Sophy's Duckling 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Secret police? The United States of America is at the forefront of secretly spying on it's own citizens. The opening paragraph of a recent article in a major, syndicated column: "These days, between the news that the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping without warrants and that the Justice Department wants to know what searches have been conducted on Google and elsewhere, it's no wonder you feel under watch." [7] Yes, the United States of America has the most advanced methods for secretly policing ever known to modern humans. -- VinnyCee 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have the technology. They do not have the will of the people behind them (and remember will of the people = elected officials = control of the military), though. How many news outlets do you know of that were shut down because they criticized the American government for spying on them, though? Unlike genuine police states like China, the US does not quash knowledge of its flirtations with more control (and this program was not even about regular US citizens...The numbers they got were, I think, from captured al-Qaida cell phones). Sophy's Duckling 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is some fresh evidence. In an article published today on MSNBC.com entitled "U.S. tortures Guantanamo detainees", the U.N. Human Right's Commission postulates "In the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees the U.S. executive operates as judge, as prosecutor, and as defense counsel," and "This constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent trial.". The commission also "urges closing the prison". [8] If this little fact about the executive branch taking over for the judicial branch in order to indefinitely detain United States citizens does not constitute a police state, I don't know what does. -- VinnyCee 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't dispute that the U.S. is accused of being a police state, compared to a police state, and otherwise criticized for its police-state-like behaviour. The criticism is valid: however my primary objection (stated above under "Removing the terrorism section") stands, that by the definition set forth in this article (Police state) and in the referenced article Totalitarianism, the U.S. does not qualify as a police state. There may be many/some instances where the government exhibits behaviour indicative of a police state, but this does not necessarily make it one.

With so many accusations of course, it would seem amiss if we didn't mention the U.S. at all, so I am fine with something along the lines of the compromise suggested (below, under "Backing up the statements"), which involves each listed "contemporary police state" having a brief justification for being included in the list. Still, it would still seem to make more sense to include the U.S. (and others, if applicable) in a separate list/section; something like "Contemporary states exhibiting behaviour typical of police states", only much less wordy. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 08:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that these accusations are levelled by someone against pretty much every country in the world. Should we list every country in the world? DJ Clayworth 14:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think we would have to list every country in the world, We might have to list many; and I think we should base the list on Nations that have been harshly criticized by Human Rights Organizations. while this would by no means include all the world's countries, it would probably include nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United KIngdom, Syria, The United States, SIngapore, Belarus, the Russian Federation, and many other countries which some editors might find it controversial to be listed as possibly police states, but hey, facts are facts, and an NPOV is an NPOV, so to be fair and not reflect a ideologically based or regional-centric view point all of the states with significant accusations should be included in the list without distinction. -- WaynaQhapaq 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Backing up the statements

Reading some of the contributions above, I for one think we need to offer a justification for any regime that is listed here. For example, is Saudi Arabia really a police state? Yes, it has harsh laws, which we in the West would not agree with or think of as fair, but if the rule of law prevails then we can't call it a police state. Likewise Singapore - I have friends there, and I don't think they have ever considered it a police state - strict yes, but arbitrary no.

At the very least I think every country listed here should be accompanied by a few sentences of explanation of why the country should be considered a ploice state. DJ Clayworth 18:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the rule of law prevails in Saudi Arabia. The families whose children were burned alive in the link Rama provided above, for instance, cannot make a legitimate appeal and have the religious police responsible for the murder of their children punished. 24.8.218.140 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alas, the same can be said in the United States, as we have seen in the multitude of cases of unwarranted police shootings (mostly of blacks), whose families have no chance whatsoever for legal recourse, as the financial costs are obviously prohibitive. The police who commit these shootings are never prosecuted for the murder of these innocents, and are rarely even reprimanded. As in the U.S. Justice system, the testimony of a police officer is taken at face value as solid fact. -- WaynaQhapaq 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"At the very least I think every country listed here should be accompanied by a few sentences of explanation of why the country should be considered a police state."

I heartily agree with this statement, Clayworth, I hope the other editors will respect this wisdom. -- WaynaQhapaq 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I think VinnyCee's sources present a pretty compelling case that there are many who consider the U.S. to be an emerging police state. Furthermore, for a topic of this Magnitude, I feel that the article is much to small in its current form. Rather than having simplistic (and perhaps somewhat arbitrary) bulletted list of " contenmorary police states" (which is an extrememly contentious and no doubt controversial assertion to make about the government of any nation), I think that each nation that is accused of being a police state should form a subsection, and the reasons for the accusations should be included underneath. Most other Major Articles in wikipedia of a similar nature have been conducted in this manner. I think doing this would greatly improve the quality of this article, as well as conform better with Wikipedia's NPOV policy,(resolving disputes in the process) as well as improve the article's overall credibility. -- WaynaQhapaq 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why I have already suggested elaborating on each country. Please see above. Furthermore, I do not agree sources are provided for the claim the US is a police state. Show us an article by human rights organisations, or doctors without borders, or the UN, et cetera, than we can talk. Just listing "a site" does not constitute a reputable source. Nomen Nescio 10:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we are starting to be specific. I look forward to some more details. Saudi Arabia particularly, what exactly happens? What are the religious police responsible for? Do they have legal standing? Are there laws that govern them?

I want to put a few things to people before we start including countries on this list:

1. Laws we disagree with do not make a country a police state. The question is not 'are the laws good' the question is 'is there rule of law'.
2. Rogue policemen do not make a police state. There will be such incidents. For a police state to exist the abuses must be systematic, widespread and sanctioned from the top.
3. An expensive justice system is not the same as a police state. A police state is when sueing the police gets you dumped in the river, not when you can't afford it. All kinds of oppression are not the same.

DJ Clayworth 14:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Clayworth, That is your personal opinion, not indisputble fact. Please stop stating them as if they are such. I, for one, dispute some of your assertions,

The examples of shooting in the U.S. that i mentioned, are not the actions of "rogue policemen" they are very widespread and have been and are sanctioned by the highest levels of the U.S. government. While the means of these types of oppression are perhaps not exactly the same, the effects evinced by the government are the same, as there is no option of legal recourse for the victims, there is no check by the people on the power of the government or the police. This constitutes as aspect of being a police state. -- WaynaQhapaq 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can show clear evidence that the 'police shootings' you refer to are both widespread and sanctioned from the top then you will have gone a long way towards proving your point. So let's see the evidence. DJ Clayworth 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the best case for calling the USA a "police state" is what is happening in Guantanamo, which is quite reminiscent of Chile under Pinochet; however, this is not applied against the population of the USA, and the government does not rule by this. Rama 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is not true, Many U.S. citizens have been detained without trial at both Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as other secret U.S. detention facilities across the globe, as evidenced in many human rights reports, including those of the U. N., some have possibly even dissapeared. The U.S. government does rule by this intimidation, especially when it comes to making decisions about matters related to the "War on Terror". -- WaynaQhapaq 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The detainees at Guantanamo are not, according to the sources I have read, US citizens. Please supply any evidence you have to the contrary. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples

To start with some sources:[9]

Algeria [10] Azerbaijan [11] Chad [12][13] Chechnya [14][15][16] China [17] Darfur [18] Egypt [19][20][21] Iraq [22] Iran [23][24] Lebanon [25] Liberia [26] Libya [27][28] Middle East [29] Morocco [30] Nigeria [31] Papua New Guinea [32] Saudi Arabia [33][34] Sudan [35][36][37] Syria [38][39] Tunisia [40][41] Uganda [42] Ukraine [43] USA [44][45][46][47][48] Zimbabwe [49][50]

When I find more[51][52][53] I will add them here so editors can expand the article. Nomen Nescio 16:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While these references are exceptionally good, the trouble is that none of them (unsurprisingly) state that 'x is a police state'. We have to infer. So given that pretty much every country in the world has examples of human rights abuses, where do we draw the line? DJ Clayworth 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the behavior(s) cited are normal. That in itself is hard to define, though. Police shootings of civilians are not the "norm" in the United States--policemen who do not drink on duty do not say "Hey! Let's shoot people, especially those of a minority race so we can stir up media controversy and endanger our jobs!"--but they happen anyway. To read Amnesty International's site, you'd think that execution of the mentally ill is mandated by some sort of government statue, but it's not. Another way to determine whether it should be on the list is the extent to which media personalities and ordinary citizens can get away with criticizing the actions in question. Sophy's Duckling 04:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course none of these sources state that "x is a police state", as it is inherently an inflamatory statement, and a matter of opinion. This article's own definition states that "No state ever claims to be a "police state"; the term is always applied by critics of the state, based on differing perceptions of legitimate law, human rights, and social contract. Given the absence of unambiguous standards for being a 'police state', any such list is bound to be subjective and disputed. The examples below are therefore not presented as any kind of definitive list, or meant to imply universal agreement on the categorisation." Therefore, it would obviously be innapropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV, No original research, and Not a Crystal ball policies to impose distinctions between alleged police states, based on our own personal prejudices, whatever they may be, as these distinctions wold be higly subjective and based more on perspective opinion, rather than fact. Prudence indeed will dictate, that to treat the matter fairly, instead of a subsection entitled "examples of the police state" historical and contemporary, a more appropriate tile would be something along the lines of "Nations accused of being Police States" or "examples of Police State behaviour". -- WaynaQhapaq 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You make an excellent point Wayna. If it is "inherently an inflamatory statement, and a matter of opinion" then maybe as an encyclopedia we shouldn't be doing it at all. Maybe we should be deleting the list entirely. DJ Clayworth 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, clayworth, as of now, I am deleting the entire list, and I will request that no country be put back on the list, unless it is first discussed on this page, and at the very least a few sentences are written in the article about why it is accused of being a police state. I will also request that when the list is created, distinctions not be made between countres on the list as these distinctions are purely subjective, and therfore un-encyclopaedic. As the list stands now, the only distinctions that are made are between Anglophone countries, and non-anglophone countries. To some, this might seem very Anglo-centric. That is just one reasons why i request that there be no distinctions, as to avoid possible interperetation of the article as being based in ethno-centrism or racism of any kind. Thank you for your wise suggestion. -- WaynaQhapaq 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting and recreating the list

I notice that despite this discussion more states have been added to the list, but on not one case has any word of explanation been added. I would like to suggest a simple remedy - that the entire list is deleted, and it is made an unofficial rule that no state is put back on the list without some explanation of why it is considered a police state. I don't see that this would be any kind of hardship. Surely, assuming only minimal standards of integrity, everyone who adds a state to this list has reasons for doing so, and therefore is quite capable of writing a couple of sentences explaining those reasons. All those in favour? DJ Clayworth 15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Although I am the first to suggest consensus it seems ridiculous to delete the entire list. I would think that numerous states already in the list are without any doubt a police state. It might be worth our while to take the list with sources I made above and start with looking at those countries. Are there any police states among them?-- Nomen Nescio 20:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote in favour! -- WaynaQhapaq 20:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point I have to agree with DJ Clayworth. Any unreferenced nations in the list need to be deleted, and brought here for consideration. This article has become too volatile to be reliable without sources, and the determination of which sources are usable will take time best not spent mucking about on the article itself. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I also support exclusion of a bare list of "contemporary examples of police states" until we least have some appropriate sources and consensus is achieved. However, simply excluding the historical list smells dangerously like revisionism, and I would have thought our time is not well spent including this list in the debate, if the real difficulty is actually only with the contemporary list. Anyone seeking the removal of any particular regime from the historical list should attempt to explain themselves here (so we're clear, is there actually disagreement on any of these historical examples)? Also, whatever solution we arrive at for listing contemporary examples, it may be useful to dablink to List of dictators or at least not create a poor cousin of that list. 203.198.237.30 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, when I wrote the above I was referring to the currently volatile "contemporary" list; as far as I know no one has been changing the historical list much, have they? If not, that list still has consensus and we only need to worry about the current nations. -- nae'blis _(talk) 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave the historical references, we only debate which country would be a police state at this time. Nomen Nescio 07:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence and sources on what countries to include

Arguments on why we oppose or support any inclusion would be a good way to ascertain what to include as current police states. The following are just suggestions so please add you oppose or support with short comment ( include sources, since allegations that are not substantiated will not be taken into account) and don't forget to sign. Of course, feel free to add countries you feel should be mentioned too.

Algeria

Support

1. Support, human rights and freedom of the press are not very well protected.[54] Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Support

1. Support, police brutality, elections manipulated, I would say this constitutes a police state.[55]-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Belarus

Support

1. Support, as HRW puts it: The Commission on Human Rights should adopt a resolution condemning the government of Belarus for the further consolidation of state repression.[56]-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Burma

Support

1. Support, widespread and systematic abuse of human rights by the military government, according to HRW.[57]-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

China and Tibet

Support

1. Support, no freedom of the press, censorship, persecution of dissenting voices.[58] Nomen Nescio 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, no freedom of the press, censorship(see google).helohe (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire

Support

1. Support, according to HRW, Côte d’Ivoire’s government security forces, allied militias, and the north-based rebels alike routinely harass, intimidate, and even execute civilians as the country’s political stalemate bolsters impunity, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.[59][60] Nomen Nescio 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Support

1. Support, according to HRW, The Ethiopian government is using intimidation, arbitrary detentions and excessive force in rural areas of Ethiopia to suppress post-election protests and all potential dissent, Human Rights Watch said today after a research trip to Addis Ababa and the Oromia and Amhara regions.[61][62] Nomen Nescio 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

France

Support

1. Support Maybe not yet but its quite fast getting there .Article in German: [63] helohe (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You thinking that France may one day in the future be something you consider a police state doesn't make it a police state now. --MattShepherd 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain

Oppose

1. Oppose Common sense. Democracy, free press, etc. etc. --MattShepherd 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Iraq

Oppose

1. Oppose inclusion of the current government because the country is a war zone & human rights violations are result of that more than systematic government persecution. Amnesty Internationals's reports focus on the American government [64] and terrorist and insurgent groups [65] rather than the present government. Sophy's Duckling 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jordan

Support

1. Support, no freedom of the press, , arbitrary justice system, violating human rights.[66] Nomen Nescio 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kazachstan

Support

1. Support, violation of Human Rights, persecution of dissenting voices.[67] Nomen Nescio 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

Oppose

1. Corruption and lawlessness seem to be a problem, but not a police state, nor (yet) a failed state. Ben Aveling 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

USA

Support

1. Support. Television is censored. Books are banned. And probability is high that you can not take use of your free speek. See: Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States helohe (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, the administration does not control the media, there is no state sanctioned persecution of dissenting views.[68][69]Nomen Nescio 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

- This is not 100% true. For example, the Bush administration has paid 'reporters' to promote policy. They also have a history of locking out media that tends to be unfriendly to the administration from press conferences while allowing those who push bush policy access even if they work as a male prostitute.DS

1. Oppose, the rule of law, freedom of information, and freedom of speech exist. Sophy's Duckling 18:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, as much as I dislike Bush, there is nothing that could be said about the USA that could not also be used to justify Canada, Great Britain, etc. as police states. Actually, the UK and Canada come closer to filling the criteria as the government actually OWNS major players in the media. There are several "police state" aspects to the U.S., but it is a far cry from being a "real" police state. --MattShepherd 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No poll yet

I wish you hadn't started with a poll, Norman, just because I don't think we're anywhere near ready for that stage of this process. First we need to figure out what sources we're going to consider, and then cite those sources for each country that was recently on the list. If we get 'general consensus' of the sources that it is a police state, then it goes in. This isn't a beauty contest, and verifiability should be our highest goal. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I would think it is evident that bloggers and obscure websites do not count as reputable source. Althoug somewhat prematurely, I thought it was save to assume that international Human Rights organisations, the UN, the Counsel of Europe, et cetera would be acceptable to all editors. So, as long as editors include their sources, as I do, what is the harm? Nomen Nescio 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion a poll is entirely the wrong way to do it. States don't become Police states because people vote that they are. The way to do this is to have someone propose a country for inclusion in the list and provide evidence and sources. Then we can discuss whether or not to include it. Otherwise this is going to become a whole set of fact-free arguments. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is why part of the poll is argumentation and using sources. Merely an opinion does not suffice, and those votes without substantiating should not be counted. Seems reasonable to me. What's more, I cannot see another way of reaching consensus on what to include. But I am open to suggestions. The countries that I use in the poll would be my selection of candidates, plus the USA on account of popular demand. Nomen Nescio 15:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

• Amnesty International?
• United Nations?
• United States Government?
• European Union?
• African Union?

Countries with comments from some of the above sources

Personally I think all countries (except the USA) I included in the poll warrant the description police state. I will postpone further explanation since we first have to agree on what sources to use, and if a poll with argumantation would be adequate. Nomen Nescio 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a vote and then yanking the categories is bad....

• Sigh* Watchlisted. Can we agree on what we're voting on, yet? Ronabop 10:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the vandalism/personal attack by suspected sockpuppets 194.217.231.252 and 24.11.91.3 of VinnyCee. He is at it all morning on my pages for which they are now semiprotected.[70][71] Clearly unsatisfied and still looking for a way to express his resentment he has now brought his personal attacks to this page.Nomen Nescio 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)