Talk:Police state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Police state is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Archive1 06/25/04-02/20/06

Contents 1 RFC 2 GPS/GSM bugs - a totalitarian surveillance weapon from hell 3 Talk Page 4 Addition of USA 5 Outsider view 6 Some changes 7 Major edits to section "Temporary restriction of rights and freedoms" 8 Whitewashing 9 Countries and regimes which have been described as "police states" 9.1 Historical 9.2 Contemporary 9.3 Comments 10 Idomatic? expansion of the term 11 Puhleeeeze, we're busy 12 History needs reference? 13 George W. Bush 14 A Police State 15 Democratic Nazi Germany!? 16 Definition here seems too general 17 A call for open speech. 18 WikiProject Law Enforcement tag 19 Removal of biased souce on external link. 20 Islamic Republic of Iran 20.1 Iran

[edit] RFC

Hi there! I came in through the WP:RFC/P.

My first immediate comment is: "why?!". The article you are writing is not List of Police states, it is Police state! I can understand citing several contemporary states as an example of a Police State, but I would suggest using only the most clear-cut examples available. They should serve to illustrate the concept of a police state, rather than provide an exhaustive list.

Moreover, if you do want to create an exhaustive list of Police States, I can assure you right off the bat, that this article will be rampant with vandalism and edit-wars in no time, wasting an otherwise decent article.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, as in my opinion almost all states are police states. helohe (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That is actually a very good idea. Sophy's Duckling 16:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of a discussion held on Talk:Kleptocracy about which governments could be included. The truth seems to be that there is not much benefit to including concrete examples when discussing a theoretical constructs. Similar to articles on mental illness and conceptual engineering being bombarded with examples of "in fiction/film/etc." sections, it seems that articles about types of governments, particularly pejorative terms, are bombarded with inappropriate examples. Per The Minister of War, at the very least split that off to another article, but much better, just eliminate the list altogether. siafu 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also here from RfC and have commented a bit above. Honestly, the "list" seems like a way for some folks with rather radical (read, not NPOV and certainly not held by consensus) political ideas to start throwing the term "police state" around at any country that they deem to be big old meanies. If you compare and contrast genuine police states to some of the debated nations above (United States? Great Britain? FRANCE?) the differences should be obvious. If they aren't, perhaps you should spend some time in a genuine police state and pop back in later on. --MattShepherd 19:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "list" is largely an exercise in POV-pushing. Unfortunately, it also reflects the POV-pushing of the U.S. State Department, the British Foreign office, and a whole gaggle of NGOs, who inevitably start hollering "police state" at any country that is contemplating repudiating its debts or nationalizing firms that exploit its raw materials. And although I would not call the Anglo-American countries police states, they are certainly not in a position to point any fingers -- the U.S. now has detention without trial, warrantless searches, and the Theory of the Unitary Executive. The vaunted "democracy" of the UK may be overturned at the drop of a hat by the prerogative powers of the monarchy. I would say, regarding the list, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. --HK 23:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that it is not correct to say that "democracy of the UK may be overturned [...] by the prerogative powers of the monarchy". The powers of the monarchy are in fact extremely limited, and the last time a monarch tried it there was a civil war to prove him wrong. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, another outsider taking a random walk around the Wikipedia quagmires here. I definitely think there should be no list of police states. It's obviously subjective and different people will have different opinions. I strongly object to lists based on some subjective criteria that sit on Wikipedia pretending to be fact. Just describe the general meaning and common traits. — Steverwanda 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we pull the list of real states, I think we should pull the fictional ones as well? Regards, Ben Aveling 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with pulling the list, but the fictional ones serve a useful purpose as examples, and are not so likely to be contentious. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem I have with pulling the list - it seems we're ony doing it because it's contentious. Now I can accept an argument that describing police states is more valuable than listing them, but if so, surely that applies to fictional states as well? Regards, Ben Aveling 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a Category:Police states? If not, I could see having a list somewhere. If so, this article probably ought to be linked to from the category, and remove the 'contemporary' list at the least. Is the historical list contentious, now? I do agree that examples would be better than an "exhaustive" list, we are not an NGO, watchdog group, or government foreign affairs office. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, any list of "police states" suffers from a lack of verifiability. The article, attached to this talk page, states in its opening paragraph:

A government does not describe itself as a "police state". Instead, it is a description assigned to a regime by internal or external critics in response to the law, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's stance on human rights, the social contract and similar matters.

Meaning that it's not a self-description, and is usually pejorative (read: POV). The best we could do, rather than arguing over who could be included or not (highly contentious, not to mention original research), is to use someone else's list (e.g. Amnesty International) and cite it as such. That way, the content of said can't be argued here or altered. siafu 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't advocate pulling the fictional list. Maybe we wouldn't put them in a list--I think I recall seeing that Wikipedia is not a list deposit?--but the dystopiae in We, 1984, &c., are unequivocally police states. Sophy's Duckling 19:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be freaken kidding me. This has got to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. The entire section "Restrictions upon rights and freedoms" has got to go. These articles are not a playground for teenage idiots, mmmkay? What on God's green earth has Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and the other stuff in that section have to do with a freaken police state? I'm offended. Not by the politics, but by the ignorance.

As for a list, I don't see why some examples wouldn't be illuminating, I'd suggest the famous obvious ones, as those are less likely to be controversial: USSR, Nazi Germany, East Germany. Add the Shah's Iran (SAVAK) and Haitu (Tonton Macoutes) for good measure, maybe. Coomplete lists are at List of historical secret police organizations and List of secret police organizations. I don't think any current states are true police states, except maybe North Korea, but who knows what the hell goes on there. The Chinese government is probably not monolithic enough to qualify. Also, sticking strictkly to historical states will be less controversial. Herostratus 08:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea, and also the nuanced vision underlying. I appreciate that someone tries to understand precisely how things are in "less-democratic" countries, on a finer sampling grain than "Good vs Evil". Rama 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I also came here via the RFC.

I think it is a weak compromise to talk only about fictional "police states" without specifying real ones. Right now, it seems the only country that everyone is willing to agree was a police state is Nazi Germany. This beggars the definition to be almost useless.

I understand there is a lot of controversy raised when you label a country as a "police state" because somebody will object and then there will be a long debate and possibly an edit war.

However, it is useful to consider the idea that some nations have characteristics similar to that of a "police state". When phrased this way, we can say that the U.S. has characteristics similar to that of a "police state" without saying that the U.S. is a police state. Same with South Africa.

The challenge then is to identify what are the characteristics of a "police state". Is it having a "secret police" or lack of protection for civil liberties? Once you have identified those characteristics, you could say "any nation that has all of these characteristics is likely to be considered a police state by most people.". You could also say "if a nation has only a few of these characteristics, some people may consider it a police state and some might not."

Does that help? I hope so.

Sure. The current opening paragraph provides the following characteristics.

A police state is

• an authoritarian state
  • which uses the police, especially secret police,
  • to maintain and enforce political power,
  • often through violent or arbitrary means.
• A police state typically exhibits
  • elements of totalitarianism or other harsh means of social control.
• In a police state
  • the police are not subject to the rule of law and
  • there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

That seems like a pretty good start. Some of that is repetitive, and I would add something about a climate of fear and a network of informers. I think that the German Democratic Republic makes the best prototypical police state. But its probably not useful to state that country XYZ has such-and-such of these elements, I guess the reader can figure that out for himself. Herostratus 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard 03:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPS/GSM bugs - a totalitarian surveillance weapon from hell

Make sure you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps_tracking , and also the ongoing discussion. The latest entry which summarizes the situation is '7 Agent X2: Basically thanks - with a 'little' more'.

Please contribute, if you can, and spread the word!

Michael Laudahn 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page

This talk page is way too long. Can we make an archive of up to the topic "Rfc"? Sophy's Duckling 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, especially since the previous topics haven't been touched in at least five days. Archived. siafu 16:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of USA

*** Snip ***

Can we delete this discussion again, then? It has no bearing on this article, as it is a polemic against another user. Sophy's Duckling 01:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Offtopic discussion of users' behaviour, good faith and vandalism moved to my talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In case someone wants to add USA again, first consider this, from Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas):

Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.

--Error28 07:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider view

Came here from the RfC.

To me the article is currently basically OK.

problems:

1. Section "Restrictions upon rights and freedoms" -- too U.S. focused. The U.S. is not a police state, so the info needn't be there at all.
2. Intro: "A police state is an autocratic state which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, often through violent or arbitrary means. "
   1. The article does not mention much about the secret police? Is there a source for this? Is the secret police a necessity in theory or is it just the way it is in practice?
   2. Must it be an autocratic state to be a police state? Why?

Other than that, the article is fine, I think.

Fred-Chess 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The reaosn we have a section about the US is that we used to have a list of police states, and there was a gigantic edit war over inclusion of the United States in that list. Sophy's Duckling 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least one of the users in that war was blocked for week and hasn't been back since. He's gone, so do the right thing. You don't have to empower trolls and fools. Herostratus 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

I feel the article was too much a philosophical discussion of whether the PATRIOT Act makes the USA a police state and not enough about the concept of the police state as would normally be understood. I have done my best to tone down that section, and have also placed it below the section on the types of absolutist government more usually associated with police states. I believe we need some referenced statements in regard of certain current African dictatorships, and greater insight than I have regarding whether notional democracies in modern-day Africa qualify. Also, we need a much better treatment of what separates a police state from a dictatorship.

Well, that's my view, anyway. You may think otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 19:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edits to section "Temporary restriction of rights and freedoms"

Major reduction of this entire section, partly based on the previous several comments in this talk page. There is a lot of excellent work in this section. It just doesn't belong in this article. Editors are encoruaged to take if (from below, or the history) and put it in some article where it belongs. Herostratus 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

---

ORIGINAL TEXT
TITLE:Temporary restriction of rights and freedoms
{{NPOV-section}} In times of national emergency or war, the balance which may usually exist between the freedom of individuals and national security in an otherwise well-regulated state often tips in favour of the state (see also National security and rights & freedoms). On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin famously stated that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". The issue of restriction of civil liberties in advanced democracies is recognised as a contentious one.

It is asserted by several Governments and their supporters that the conduct of the current War on Terrorism falls under this heading, with various countries including Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States enacting legislation designed to hamper the activities of potential terrorists. However, this legislation is widely regarded as contentious, and critics point out that it also has the effect of hampering the legitimate actitivies of citizens, and restricting various rights and freedoms.

There is historical precedent in time of war; for example in the United States, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the American Civil War, Woodrow Wilson allowed many citizens to be imprisoned for sedition during World War I, and Franklin D. Roosevelt allowed many Japanese-Americans to be placed in internment camps during World War II (see Japanese American internment).

In Australia, the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 permits arbitrary constraints on individuals and greatly increases the information gathering ability of the police. Proponents of the legislation argue that it decreases the likelihood of terrorist attacks on Australian targets. [1].

In the United States, the U.S. Congress, with the support of the Bush administration, has passed a number of laws, including the USA Patriot Act, which have expanded the power of the executive to monitor and control those within the U.S. The executive has also wiretapped suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens.

Opponents have viewed the legislation as facilitating the creation of a "police state"[2][3]. This view is not widely accepted, although many do feel that current restrictions are excessive.

Some in the U.S. argue pursuant to the Unitary Executive theory that the U.S. President as Commander-in-Chief and as a "war president", may temporarily set aside some freedoms and rights in order to maintain and protect national security. However, opponents note that no state of war formally exists, and are concerned with the extent to which "national security" may serve as an arbitrary pretext for restricting social and political opposition to government policies, and that without strong and appropriate regulation and a system of checks and balances, there may be little to distinguish a free and just society from a police state[4][5].

---

REDACTED TEXT
TITLE:Idomatic expansion of the term
In times of national emergency or war, the balance which may usually exist between the freedom of individuals and national security in an otherwise well-regulated state often tips in favour of the state. Occasionally polemecists will claim that the nation in question is, or is becoming, a police state. Such statements should be seen as valid in the area of political hyperbole, propaganda tactics, and cautionary predictions of long-term trends, but not as a proper scholarly re-definition of the (somewhat narrow) term "police state".

---

Notes
Of the four references at the end, none use the word "police state". All are worthy articles, I suppose, but not in this article -- except for the Secular Humanist piece which, while not actually using the term "police state", does offer a list of attributes to be found in a states which many would describe as police states. I will move this to the External Links section.

Since I thus don't have any references that use the term "police state" in regards to modern restrictions in the US etc, I dont' think in good conscience we can retain the statement

"Some opponents have viewed the legislation as facilitating the creation of a 'police state'"

Since that statement can't be retained, the entire preceeding passage (shown in a version edited by me):

"For instance, nn recent times, pursuant to the war on terror, the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 permits certain constraints on individuals and greatly increases the information gathering ability of the police. In the United States, the Congress has passed the USA Patriot Act and other laws which have expanded the power of the executive to monitor and control those within the U.S. The executive has also wiretapped suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens."

has no reason to exist anymore, either. I would have preferred to have retained these two passages and would have if I had any citations. If anyone can find citatations of reasonably notable entity (e.g. not Joe Schmoe's livejournal entry) making claims that the US or Australia is or is becoming a "police state", they may wish to restore that section (although the point -- "A few people say the USA is a police state, although nobody takes that seriously" -- is just an expansion of the preceeding paragraph and probably not that important. In fact, leaving this section in at all is a bone to the original editors, since the statement "Occasionally polemecists will claim that the nation in question is, or is becoming, a police state" actually has no citations. But somebody probably said it somewhere, so OK.)

Discussion welcome. Herostratus 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For those interested in references:

The slippery slope that Bush has embarked upon leads to a police state, plain and simple.[6]

However, I am not suggesting the US is a police state, merely providing the requested source. Nomen Nescio 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice find Nescio, thank you. (The source, the Santiago Times, is not (as might first appear) a newspaper, but an English-language website. However, it is or appears to be part of a several-person project and thus a step above a single-person blog. Nevertheless, its a valid reference (IMO) for "some people say police state" IMO. Herostratus 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing

Given that police states do exist, and that the skyrocketing incarceration rate in the US provides tangible evidence of such, it was startling to see an entire section, providing essential review of current police states, had been blanked. The Wiki is not the place for such denial of reality. Given that police states typically have plenty of fervent supporters who would rebuke the use of any such label, it seems senseless to require 'verification'. There are tried and messy methods for npoving articles, but outright blanking of essential content is absurd. Ombudsman 21:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is POV, OR, and simple nonsense. Unless you can provide some sort of objective reference for what states constitute a universally accepted definition of police state (you can't, there isn't one), you'll have to stick to a well-accepted list created by a peer-reviewed source and properly attribute it (which hasn't been done). Otherwise, all you're doing is POV-pushing as there's no reason to include or not include any nation in the world. siafu 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's knee-jerk US-bashing. There was no source on the paragraph about incarceration rates, and no explanation of how the US prison population indicates that it is a police state. We don't form our own conclusions in Wikipedia. Rhobite 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since a list of current police states provoked an edit war I would think reposting them is not a good idea. Beyond that, if you do feel the need to make a list at least provide sources to substantiate the claims and discuss here. And a blog does not constitute a source. Nomen Nescio 03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as US-bashing so much as police-state-excusing. If a student is trying to learn about (say) Nazi Germany, hears the term "police state" applied, comes to this article, and finds basically "Well, Nazi Germany was pretty much like the US", the student, knowing that US has pretty much free speech, free press, jury trial, Bill of Rights, rule of law, and the rest, is being led to believe that Nazi Germany must have been a pretty OK place. Why would anyone want to leave that impression? Herostratus 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree less with the somewhat-ironically-named Herostratus.

This is an important issue. The use of this term should not be rarified in order to draw distinction between existing police states and the worst that have existed--it should be trumpeted to alert the frog that he is in boiling water. Just because a police state is not as bad as Nazi Germany does not make it "pretty much like the US," and it is fairly alarming to hear anyone suggest a reasonable person, however ignorant of history, would draw that conclusion. Let's face it. In many ways, Nazi Germany is considered the worst case scenario. Nevertheless, even in Nazi Germany, most of the civilian public was allowed to live their lives without interference--provided of course that they knew where to step to avoid the political mines. You say the US "pretty much has" free speech, free press, jury trials, Bill of Rights, the rule of law, etc., but in using the qualifier, you automatically open the door to the plain fact that each and every one of those has been abridged in one or many ways. The advancement of the police state in most of the freest nations known, and particularly in the nation most associated with liberty in our time, is very troublesome, and to deny it is to invite those police states to approach or surpass the most ugly examples in recorded history. Denying it or taking pride in the extent to which it is imperfectly true will guarantee a repeat performance of the worst atrocities in history. Doing so thus far has already demonstrated this inevitability. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 03:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countries and regimes which have been described as "police states"

Moved from article page by MSchmahl 17:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The article page is definitely not the place for signed comments. Neither is it the place for original research. ("In 1990-92, I met people in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile who, in a previous regime, had friends and family members taken away never to be seen again.") If a list of examples is really necessary (and I don't think it is), only a half-dozen or so of the most exemplary regimes should be included. A possible criterion for inclusion might be description by three or more cited reputable sources, using the term police state in its usual (not hyperbolic) sense. MSchmahl 17:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International and other organisations are available to quote on abuses of human rights, and are WP:RS at least as far as "according to ...". Midgley 22:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that Amnesty International is a WP:RS. However, the fact that a government occasionally abuses human rights within its boundaries, doesn't necessarily make it a police state. I think that the pervasive abuse of human rights and basic liberties is essential to the definition of a "police state". A Google search on the term "police state" within www.amnesty.org only returns two hits. If examples of contemporary police states is needed at all, the standard for inclusion should be fairly high, and all examples should be cited. After all, the purpose of this article should be to help the reader to understand the concept of "police state", not to make a point. — MSchmahl 08:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the contemporary government of the United States is missing. It is quite obviously a police state. 206.124.6.4 15:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idomatic? expansion of the term

In times of national emergency or war, the balance which may usually exist between the freedom of individuals and national security in an otherwise well-regulated state often tips in favour of the state. Occasionally polemecists? ... carefully pointed at polemics. Are these accidental or special spellings? Midgley 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• If there's a misspelling, just correct it. If it's not a regular pattern by that editor, making an issue of it is bad form. Obviously "Idomatic" is a misspelling of "Idiomatic, "Polemecist" of "Polemicist". I don't know why you didn't just make the corrections; I have done so. Herostratus 23:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puhleeeeze, we're busy

I removed the following paragraph added to the "Idiomatic expansion of the term section:

Demonstrative evidence of police states include instances of extraordinarily high incarceration rates. The United States comprises only five percent of the world’s population, yet has 25% of the prisoners worldwide, thanks in large part to the drug war, making the US incarceration rate the highest in the Western world.

Reasons:

1. Whoever said high incarceration rates are a key element of a police state? I never heard that. If Airstrip One had high incarceration rates (no reason to believe that it did), its not mentioned or mentioned only in passing IIRC. The Gulag Achipelego doesn't focus on numbers, nor does The Black Book of Communism or Nazi Terror. I think the key defining aspects are methods (dissappearance in the night, lack of any third-party oversight, etc) and a cultural climate of fear, stuff like that. (And the link in Demonstrative evidence points to the article "Demonstrostative evidence", not any actual evidence.)
2. How did we get from Police State to the drug war in, like, one sentence? WTF???
3. And basically, c'mon. OK User:Ombudsman, we get it, you don't like the USA. Fine. There are just scores and hundreds of web sites that eagerly await your penetrating essays on the matter. Not here, please. Herostratus 00:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History needs reference?

I will not revert again but this is absolutely ludicrous. What do you mean cites for Nazi Germany as police state? Are you kidding? Nomen Nescio 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not kidding. (Perhaps your should review WP:V?) As it is, this list is just bait for people to come along and add their favorite to the list. We can't just make our own list, since the requirements for inclusion are so nebulous. Moreover, what do we gain from having a list? A police state is an ideological type that can't actually exist to its fullest, hence its always a matter of degree; Nazi Germany is by far not the best example, in fact. There is no perfect example, and it isn't so helpful to present so many imperfect ones; it's not that the list is incorrect per se, but that it cannot possibly be correct. siafu 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You make several interesting observations.

• No country today or in the past fits the definition of "police state." This can only mean "police state" exist only as a theoretical and hypothetical concept.
• Regarding kidding. If we accept that "police state" is not hypothetical and we refer to Hitler, most people would not need any source for that. However, should anyone have missed history lessons in school, and the multitude of documentaries on the subject there is some good source material. Please see Shoah, Shoah Foundation, Nazi Germany, Auschwitz, Gestapo, Schutzstaffel. Nomen Nescio 11:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can't serve as references for other articles. "Common knowledge" is also no good. You'll have to actually refer to a documentary or source material that calls it a "police state", and use that as a reference. However, even if this is done I still disagree that a list is at all a good idea, and the consensus from the RFC, which you can still see above, is the same. It does not add anything to the article and simply creates an invitation for disruption and vandalism-- note that this has already happened since you re-added the list. siafu 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the RFC as well. VinnyCee 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Both editors clearly have not heard of these documentaries, films and historical events I refer to as they are discussed on Wikipedia. Suffice it to say that I agree with the need for sources and therefore, since no source exists claiming any country to be, or have been, a "police state," I suggest we mention that this term is a theoretical one, and is not used in real life. To paraphrase both editors, there are no police states and never have been. Nomen Nescio 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

George W. Bush was added as "Related". Is this proper? I am reverting it until there is a consenus --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 05:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's obvious that the George W. Bush regime is a Police State regime. Do a Google on Police state. Read the news. I'm not sure what the doubt is supposed to be. See HomelandStupidity.us [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.124.6.4 (talk • contribs) .
  • Um, no, it's not proper. Don't even feed the trolls. Herostratus 08:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Proper my ass. You people and your police state just can't handle the truth. 206.124.6.4 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you'll find that real police states are well able to handle the truth - in a very direct and final manner. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Police State

It's what we have here. The truth will be erased by the truth Nazis here at any cost. 206.124.6.4 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth obviously must not be tolerated here. 206.124.6.4 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting that this article be semi-protected from editing by anonymous users until he explains himself here and properly and accurately cites RELIABLE sources. - DNewhall 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

206.124.6.4, the purpose of this talk page is not to promote your political ideas, or to call people Nazis. If you can't deal with people civilly we will stop you contributing. DJ Clayworth 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I.E., you'll resemble the remark. 206.124.6.4 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's your United States police state documentation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_101163959.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10280

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500730.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa27jul27,0,4227826.story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072500992.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa23jul23,0,4406054.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607290040jul29,1,3227323.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=25890&cat=HOME

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8a4W-9nKcTgJ:www.krqe.com/expanded.asp%3FID%3D15249+&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a%22

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsindex/23-ds1.htm

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=25890&cat=HOME

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/July/19/local/stories/05local.htm

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9559707/detail.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/ap_on_re_us/phone_records_lawsuit

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa23jul23,0,4406054.story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072500992.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233_pf.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

http://foi.missouri.edu/domsecenhanceact/policestate.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607290040jul29,1,3227323.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10280

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,53037,00.html

http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?s=4867916

http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?s=4635036

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/05/01/siler-and-abu-ghraib-mix-new-torture-video-on-the-net/

http://realidrebellion.blogspot.com/

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1228-34.htm

http://counterpunch.org/ferner07012006.html

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_07.php#004832

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7975.msg126930#msg126930

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7446.msg119740#msg119740

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7657.msg122862#msg122862

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7656.msg122847#msg122847

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7801.msg124967#msg124967

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

http://papersplease.org/cases.html

http://counterpunch.org/ferner07012006.html

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/05/01/siler-and-abu-ghraib-mix-new-torture-video-on-the-net/

http://realidrebellion.blogspot.com/

http://www.eff.org/

206.124.6.4 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A random sampling of those produces nothing from a reputable source that indicates the US is a police state. One of the ones I sampled was about corruption at a local level. Remember that you can be corrupt without being a police state. BBS and blogs are not reliable sources. DJ Clayworth 18:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Major newspapers aren't necessarily reliable sources either--but I listed many of their articles. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck....206.124.31.24 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This definition is all wrong...the US *IS* a police state in the sense that it only provides common security as oposed to a welfare state say like France that also provides healthcare and such. This is what I learned in law school a few years ago. the definitions on this page seem right for a "policial" state i.e. one that controls and policies it's own citizens Galf 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Nazi Germany!?

The article currently makes the astonishing claim that Nazi Germany was a "democratic police state". What is this supposed to mean, and weren't all other parties than the NSDAP banned in 1933 right after the Nazis came into power? Jpatokal 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers to the idea that Adolph Hitler was elected by way of a democratic electoral process.

Except that he wasn't. This is a common misconception; he was in fact appointed to the position of Chancellor by Hindenburg (the president), and used the influence of that position to seize power through the "Enabling Act". Adolf Hitler was never elected to any position of power. siafu 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition here seems too general

Opening sentence of the article: "A police state is a state with authority which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, even through violent or arbitrary means if necessary." -- Does not every state use the police (including violence and "arbitrary" means) to maintain and enforce political power? What distinguishes a "police state"? (Or is the article in fact claiming that every state with a police force is a police state?) -- Writtenonsand 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the key term here is 'secret police'. Now to understand what I mean by that you nead to undersatnd my veiw of 'secret police'. Secret Police, as oposed to true police, are answerable to no one except prehaps the head of state. they nead serve no warants and may scarch and seize with impunity. No one is byond their Imediate Juristiction, they may arest anyone at will. They need give no cause or even inform the victim why he was arested. The victim may be held indefenately for any reason or none at all. Above all they operate under a blanket of silence and shadow, never coming under general public scrutiny for anything they do.

Because of this Secret Police allmost allways become what amounts to an internal Terrorist movement strikeing at will from behind the sheald of their position. This marks them as a bread apart from normal honest Police whos sworn duty is to opose all that secret police stand for. Emperors Harbinger 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A call for open speech.

206.124.6.4 I would like to hear in your own words what a Police State is and why in simple plain English, short and to the point, you feal that the U.S.A. not only is becomeing one but in fact allready is a Police State. Thank You. Emperors Harbinger 07:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, a thousand times NO! We don't want "his own words", we want reliable sources that have already said it, whereby we can then include it in this encyclopedia. This talk page is for improving the article, not for political debate. Please, let's stay on topic and on point. -- nae'blis 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1: I didnt ask you. 2: I am atempting to resolve the conflict which has raged on this topic for a prolonged period of time. By asking him to express his position, in a consiese and diliberate manner I open the topic to the posibility of final resolution via direct aplication of the relevent policies and guidelines. If however your coment causes him to chose to not answere then this all has been a waste of time. Emperors Harbinger 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably it's all been a waste of time anyway, and it's unlikely that anything the anon would have to add, if he or she chose to add anything, would change anything. Please learn to spell, and on a wikipedia article talk page Nae'blis, or anyone else for that matter, should feel quite welcome to comment-- especially on a topic that says "A call for open speech". siafu 00:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with nae. If Emperors Harbinger wants to know 206's personal views on the matter, then they can discuss it on one of their talk pages. Personal opinions aren't going to help this article. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Law Enforcement tag

I removed the Wp:LE tag as this article is about a politcal tactic or thoery rather than actual law enforcementEMT1871 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of biased souce on external link.

one of the external links was obviously biased and not from a repuatable source. Pownow 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The link is not biased, it is a regularly updated news site that specifically concerns the content of this article. VinnyCee 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Republic of Iran

[edit] Iran

Example of hodood punishment in Iran: This women was given 50 lashes for violating sharia.[1]

Flogging of a young Iranian for reveling

Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has had a religious police that punishes offenders relentlessly. Jamal Karimi-Rad, in 2006, has vowed to work with other governmental organizations and continue the prosecution of social vice^[2] or "moral corruption". The Islamic officials use words like Western and un-Islamic as their talking points to justify such arrests^[3][4][5]. The Islamic government's obsession with the people's behavior and dress even reached a point when it would employ female religious police who "with a razor took off the lipstick from the lips" of other female citizens^[6].

The government relied on "special units" (yegan ha-ye vizhe), to complement the existing morality police, called "Enjoining the Good and Prohibiting the Forbidden" (Amr be Ma'ruf va Nahi az Monkar) in an effort to combat "un-Islamic behavior" and social corruption among the young. These auxiliaries were to assist in enforcing the Islamic Republic's strict rules of moral behavior. Credible press reports indicated members of this morality force chased and beat persons in the streets for offenses such as listening to music or, in the case of women, wearing makeup or clothing regarded as insufficiently modest or being accompanied by unrelated men^[7].

The religious police is extremely disliked by some Iranian teenagers and youths.^{[citation needed] [8]}.

In Iran, now all government-affilated people like the police of the interior ministry, the Basij of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards and Ansar e Hezbollah^[9] work in tandem to curb un-Islamic demeanor. For example, any of them has the legal authority to question and take into custody people who, inter alia, flirt or women without the proper hijab.

However, the Islamic Republic of Iran allows women to attend educational institutions, drive, and work. Therefore, the Islamic laws are not as severe as they were in the Islamic State of Afghanistan.

This is definitely the description of a police state. Even Italians fascists did not have someone stick a rod in people--figuratively speaking.--Todya 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)