Garland Texas aftermath (courtesy jpost.com)

“The state of emergency, it’s true, justifies certain temporary restrictions on liberties,” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, pronounced on Thursday, as the National Assembly voted 551 to 6 to extend a national state of emergency for three months. “But resorting to this, it’s to give us every chance to fully restore these liberties.” Bến Tre much? In Belgium, the government shuttered the public transit system, even as it looks to extend police hold on a suspect from 24 to 72 hours. The closer you look at the European reaction, the scarier it looks. Check this [via nytimes.com] . .

The French emergency bill, which the French Senate is approved on Friday, extends the powers of a 1955 emergency law to allow the dissolution of radical groups running mosques and other places of prayer; the blocking of websites and social media that glorify or incite terrorism; and the use, in certain cases, of electronic tagging for those placed under house arrest.

It is the first time since the 1955 law was passed that a national state of emergency has been declared. France is already being patrolled by heavily armed soldiers, and now police officers who are off duty will be allowed to carry firearms and use them if they wear an armband identifying themselves as police.

On Wednesday, the French authorities said they had carried out more than 414 raids across the country, arrested 64 people and placed another 118 under house arrest.

Under the emergency, the authorities are permitted to conduct raids and make arrests without first obtaining a warrant. But as soon as someone is arrested or property is seized, the regular legal system kicks in. Suspects in terrorism cases are already allowed to be held without charge for up to six days.

Americans are tooling-up in response to the most recent terrorist attacks. That’s a personal rather than political reaction. But it also protects citizens from government over-reach. In theory. In practice, what do you think will happen to our civil rights in the aftermath or a Paris-style attack or attacks on American soil?

[h/t mister3D]

108 Responses to Question of the Day: Will a Paris-Style Terrorist Attack on U.S. Lead To a Police State?

      • We still have our 4A rights, unless you live within 100 miles of the border, or the cops go to a “rubber stamp” judge for a warrant, or you use a cell phone, or your ISP gets a “national security letter”, or the government issues an “administrative subpoena” against you, or… You get the idea.

        The statists on both sides of the aisle have been working just as hard to dismantle our Fourth Amendment protections as they have been to chip away at all our other rights.

      • Say what?

        The NSA, TSA, No knocking local swat teams,”asset forfeiture laws” and the continued existence of “The Patriot Act”t seem to indicate otherwise.

        • Thank you Mack Bolan.

          “… what do you think will happen to our civil rights in the aftermath or a Paris-style attack or attacks on American soil?” Answer: the Patriot Act, just like you stated.

      • TSA, DHS, ATF, NSA, SWAT teams, agriculture check points, DUI checkpoints, illegal immigrant checkpoints, Patriot Act, free speech zones, no knock warrants, school lock downs, citywide lock downs, I’m pretty sure we are in a police state now.

      • “At this time we still have our 4th Amendment rights”

        Who’s this “we?” If you’re not rolling cameras, streaming to the cloud, you’re dead, story made up by the badges, leave no witnesses, etc…

        The 4th Amendment is long dead. The only people who think it still exists, are the ones who haven’t had to test it.

        Yet.

        • I have not needed to test it.

          I avoid the TSA, because flying is expensive. I have never been subjected to border difficulties. No knock warrents are still technically warrents, even if I don’t agree with them. The NSA already has a list of every person that has posted on TTAG anyways.

        • For everyone who is saying we are already in a police state , NO , but as a rule , it seems we allow it to be applied far to often to our fellow citizens when it doesn’t affect us directly . Slippery slope .

        • “Police state” is not a binary thing, it’s a scale. There’s no well-defined boundary past which the country starts being one, but as your rights are being gradually deconstructed or creatively reinterpreted into meaninglessness, there’s more of it creeping on.

          Unfortunately, that is kind of the problem. Most people think that unless there is a chance that some gestapo-type thugs can come to their home, drag them out, line them up against the wall, and shoot them for being politically disagreeable, it’s not a police state, and they don’t see the connection between that, and things like mass surveillance or other “emergency” measures. Especially when there’s a govt guy telling them that it’s all for their safety, after all. In reality, as more police state measures creep in, the chance of you having a run-in with govt agents that results in serious harm or even death just rise slowly. Today, you could be dead because a local SWAT decides to run a no-knock raid on your house because they believe that you have a joint of weed somewhere in it (and also because they want to cash in on asset forfeiture, and you have enough assets to make it lucrative). Next year, they might decide to run a raid on you because you’re on some secret terrorist watchlist. At some point, even talking about such things is enough to put you on the list, because, after all, why would a law-abiding citizen concern themselves with such things if they weren’t trying to dodge surveillance, proving that they have something to hide?

    • I think it depends on who is at the helm . If Kirk is in the chair , yes ( police state ).
      If Spock is in charge then logic rules and all the citizens are armed and trained to use those arms .

  1. Most folks didn’t bat an eye at the PATRIOT Act, Katrina, or the Boston Marathon aftermaths. No one cares until it affects them directly and then it’s generally too late.

    If we have another attack on the level of Paris… well, I’m not going to be surprised when everyone clamors for the government to protect them, even if it costs our freedom in the long run. People don’t get that those freedoms that were literally fought for are only going to be gained back by the same means.

    • Indeed,this country was settled with the gun and it is going to have to be resettled with the gun,that’s the exact reason they don’t want us to have guns.

      • Spot on…..won’t matter to me what they declare, doesn’t effect me. I’m a free American and will die a free American. I honestly think this is what Obama and his followtards want to happen. I won’t play there game. Come to central Pa and start kicking down doors and see what happens. Won’t be very pretty.

        • That is one of the good things about living in PA. A lot of us are armed and share the same feelings toward the govt.that you do.

        • Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Patriot act was JR’s and mostly little Dick Cheney’s baby.

    • The true meaning of “Never let a crisis go to waste”:

      In a crisis the people will beg the government to do things that in ordinary circumstances they would NEVER tolerate.

      BOSTON STRONG! Is that as in physically strong, or just the very pungent and extremely unpleasant odor of fascism?

    • ^^ This ^^

      We’ve had a pretty good glimpse of both the overreach of the authorities and the support of the joyful proletariat over ONE suspected terrorist. How progressive of our Boston brethren to give us this picture of the brave new world.

      • Yeah, remember Boston.

        Remember the folks who jumped over the barriers into the carnage to do first aid. Remember the doctors near the finish line who stepped in immediately. Remember the athletes at the end of a marathon with the strength to carry the injured in their arms to quickly improvised field treatment tents. And in the end, the bad guy was caught because of a *citizen*, who *noticed something amiss*, having a smoke *while outside, against the lockdown orders.*

        Anybody remember the aborted Times’ Square bombing? Flight 93?

        The long game here is to get the stories out … of people self-organizing to help themselves and each other, of the 0th responders (since “first responders” is taken.) Etc. “Culture is upstream of politics” (said Andrew Breitbart, who, whatever his flaws, was not wrong about this one.)

        The story in Paris is the story of the guy who threw himself over a friend, saving her life. Or the other guy in Paris who dragged his companion to cover, then treated the wounded. The people who got out by helping each other get out. Etc.

        When the fire fighters show up, they call the shots. Until then, I’m using the extinguisher, hose, and whatever else I have handy to do my poor best … which sometimes works. (Twice I’ve stopped house fires, not of my creation, I’ll add.)

        We stop the state uber alles nonsense by pointing out what works, when it works, and what fails, when it fails.

  2. absolutely it will, because people will let it. look at boston after the marathon bombings, it was a true police state. they did what they wanted, how and when they wanted to whomever they wanted. and we all let it happen in the guise of safety.

    • I would not have taken too kindly to the door to door searches with ar15’s, m4’s, and mp5’s pointed at my family.

      • I agree. I find it absolutely unconscionable this was allowed to happen. But I guess in a liberal bastion like Boston it’s to be understood. Someday this will happen again and not in some liberal stronghold. And very bad things will follow.

  3. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    Enough said!

    • Actually. Franklin wrote this line in a letter decrying the imposition of a tax to fund an organized militia. The liberty interest was freedom from taxation.

      • Regardless of the specific incident that resulted in Dr. Franklin putting this concept into our national consciousness, the idea is timeless and appropriate for all “essential liberties”. If you are willing to give up one then you will eventually be willing to give up all, or be forced to.

      • What Ben Franklin Really Said

        “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

        ‘In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade.’

        https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

  4. We’re already in a police state.

    The real question is, is whether a Paris or Mumbai-style attack will make it even more powerful than it already is.

    I rightly doubt anyone here would answer “no.”

  5. I should hope if an attack were to take place in the US of A. The general area of the attack. Like Katrina was is all I’d expect and or put up with myself. Other than that . I guess a jail cell with my name on it should be put aside in reserve!!!!!!!

      • Nope not at all ok with any of it anywhere actually. I think the Patriot Act is one of the worst things ever passed. A poor excuse for the Gubbermint knows best. Im a self reliant type and wont take any crap if pushed. Had or if “martial law” passed for any reason in an area Im in. Like I said reserve me a cell if you could get me in it. Or take your chances with me. I wont go anywhere without a fight first.

  6. Locally it would. Jihadi’s blowing up the Spongebob balloon Thursday morning would put NY, CT, NJ and MA in an open-ended lockdown.

    Folks in most other states wouldn’t experience any more police stating than they already do.

      • Southern NJ would notice a lockdown. Also I think Philly and Eastern PA would also lockdown in such an event as Philly is just a stone throw from NYC.

      • Clearly you have never been to western or southern MA.

        Here’s a hint. I live here and regularly open carry a full size sidearm. Never any problems. Most people like it.

        Had that nonsense in Boston made its way down here, things would have gone a little differently.

  7. “Will a Paris-Style Terrorist Attack on U.S. Lead To a Police State?”

    Uh, we already have a Police State. Only North Korea is worse.

    The proper question is: “Will a Paris-Style Terrorist Attack on U.S. Lead To an Even Worse Police State?”

    Yes. Yes it will. That’s why it’s being set-up by the current administration. Their reaction to it is already scripted, they just have to let in enough terrorists through the wide open border and refugee programs to make sure something happens to enact their prescribed plan.

    • Odumbo is in his last year,a police state is exactly what he has in mind before his term is up,he thinks he will be president for life like some african dictator.

      • Nah, he’s smarter than that. If Obama had himself declared president-for-life, you could measure his lifespan in weeks from that point (if not days), and he surely knows that.

        What he really wants is to pad his list of progressive “accomplishments” — and above all, to ensure that he steps straight out of the presidency into a cushy, richly paid lifestyle as a political celebrity. He’ll surely manage the latter (as it’s his real aim), and we can only hope that he doesn’t accomplish much of the former.

    • Wait wait wait….. Police border check points? Asking people for proof of citizenship papers? Warrantless deportations?… POLICE STATE!!!!

      “Only North Korea is worse?” What about Belgium? Or France? Or England? Or Australia? Or any number of other gun free utopias we slam here?

      The presidency was established with the idea that he/she could act like a dictator within a limited scope and then relinquish power (hello Cincinnatus Washington). Our second ammendment (and bill of rights for that matter) was meant to keep that crap in check…..

      I think things have gotten out of hand lately (Patriot Act, Katrina, Boston). But also see backlash from these incidents taking it in the other direction….. Shortly after the “CHP incident” in New Orleans California passed a law that Ca LE cannot take firearms in disaster zones…. After the Marrathon bombings, firearms sales in MA sky rocketed…… You may see these incidents as indicitive of a police state (and your right). I see them as the modern equivalent of “the blood of patriots” because of what comes out the other end regarding counter laws and public backlash.

    • Only North Korea is worse

      You cannot be serious.

      Howerver bad it may be here, MANY places, not just North Korea, are worse.

      • Don’t be so sure about that. Probably the most straight forward metric by which to measure the degree of police-statedness, is simply to look at the delta between the military capability of a citizen, vs that of the government. Americans score high on individual armament (good), but are also under the boot of the most well armed military/government complex around.

        The US government, along with fellow travelers in media, academia and the privileged classes, also preside over a vastly better funded propaganda machine than any other regime. Which is why you still hear people who ought to know better babble on about “the land of the free”, as if it still had some operational meaning.

        America WAS the land of the free. Back when Uncle Sam, Ponch&John and Joe Average all shopped for the same guns at the same gun shop. And Ponch&John were simply temporarily deputized Joe and Bob. And uncle Sam’s total budget barely, if at all, covered the cost of sending agents all the way to Wyoming to haul someone off to Gitmo not thinking right. And the agents could only go there if the individual states agreed to it……. Currently, serial numbered handguns without ammo capable of penetrating Overlord body armor, mraps and gunships notwithstanding, not so much.

    • Wait wait wait….. Police border check points? Asking people for proof of citizenship papers? Warrantless deportations?… POLICE STATE!!!! (I agree with you by the way about keeping these people out. But there are people on the left/open border types who screem “police state” to get the exact opposite of what you want.)

      “Only North Korea is worse?” What about Belgium? Or France? Or England? Or Australia? Or any number of other gun free utopias we slam here? Are they better or worse?

      The presidency was established with the idea that he/she could act like a dictator within a limited scope and then relinquish power (hello George “Cincinnatus” Washington). Our second ammendment (and bill of rights for that matter) was meant to keep that crap in check…..

      I think things have gotten out of hand lately (Patriot Act, Katrina, Boston). But I also see backlash from these incidents taking it in the other direction….. Shortly after the “CHP incident” in New Orleans California passed a law that Ca LE cannot take firearms in disaster zones…. After the Marrathon bombings, firearms sales in MA sky rocketed…… You may see these incidents as indicitive of a police state (and your right). I see them as the modern equivalent of “the blood of patriots” because of what comes out the other end regarding counter laws and massive public backlash and awarness…..

      If things ever go south in this country how long do you think the police are going to last? 330million guns for 320million people vs 750,000 cops and 2million military personnel. And most of those cops and soldiers would walk off the job rather than fight against a popular insurrection.

  8. I think you mean Police State 2.0

    With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the front running candidates?

    I think the answer is fairly obvious. Freedom loving people are in the minority my friend.

  9. Already there. The refusal of bury soetoro to even use the word “muslim”(or even say isil) should clue anyone in who’s side the anointed one is on. It may be time to choose which side you are on too. Perilous times indeed. At least gun companies will make lots of $…

  10. This is what Abraham Lincoln did to the citizens of what was left of the US after the new country South of the US came into being. He more or less suspended the constitution and civil rights.

    • That new country of the south suspended the constitution before Lincoln did. We talk about police state and slavery today and that’s exactly what that southern country was built on.

      • This isn’t about whether slavery is good or bad,this is about a constitutional matter.The Southern states had a constitutional right to secede,they did and war was the result,Lincoln suspended habeas corpus,did away with freedom of the press and locked up his political enemys. He created a police state out of what was left of the US.

        • The constitution does not grant states the right to secede, so it can’t be called a “constitutional right”.

        • I know this gets old, but…
          “The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

          So riddle me this, Batman, how is seccession not a right under the constitution? Remember, the matter was settled by warfare, not court rulings (which may have gone against the central government).

        • It may be a natural right, just like privacy, marriage, and others, but it doesn’t get called a _constitutional_ right unless it’s either specified or SCOTUS “discovers” it in some wording in the Constitution.

          Marriage is a good example: it isn’t a constitutional right at all, because that document doesn’t mention it, and though SCOTUS has asserted it as a right it still isn’t properly speaking a constitutional right because they didn’t derive it from there. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a right.

          One thing to consider is that the Constitution assumes the unity of the several states when it says “to form a more perfect union”. A decent argument can be made that by ratifying the Constitution, the states agreed to form a union from which there was no withdrawal. OTOH, a decent argument can be made that the ratifying generation cannot commit all future generations to such a contract… though that can be countered by the fact that the Constitution is established as the supreme law of the land with no time limit on it.

          There would be a good argument for a right to secede if that came under the “when in the course of human events” construct, i.e. an exercise of the right of insurrection against tyranny (a right enshrined, BTW, in U.S. law by the Amistad case). But I have trouble seeing wanting to continue oppressing a certain group of people on the basis of skin color as opposing tyranny.

        • It certainly was a constitutional matter. The south violated the rights of the slaves by making and keeping them slaves. Southerners engaged in torture, murder, rape and a whole list of crimes that were a constant and ongoing violation of the constitutional rights of an entire segment of their population.

          If your neighber shot you and forced your wife and daughter into his home as sex slaves would he be able to tell the responding police that he no longer recognised the authority of the union and had decided to secede? That’s exactly what the southern states did.

        • The states may have had legal authority to secede (or not; it’s a murky issue), but their actual governments sure as hell didn’t have any legitimate authority to do so, since they didn’t actually represent their entire population, with the slaves being a significant proportion of the population, and being excluded from the political process entirely. In fact, in two of the seceded states, slaves were the majority of the population. So southern states were not republics, but tyrannies. Why would free men respect any “rights” that tyrants decide to grant themselves?

  11. Why is it that most cops jump at the chance to wear camouflage and most police cars come in the color of Gestapo black?

  12. All the people commenting here about how we’re already a police state either lives in a liberal bastion like NYC or doesn’t know what a police state is…

  13. This is hilarious:

    “…now police officers who are off duty will be allowed to carry firearms and use them if they wear an armband identifying themselves as police.”

    Because a bad actor would never, in a million years, wear a similar armband in an effort to deceive.

    Friggin’ REMFs…

      • Vast majority of countries only permit carrying guns while on duty for everyone, even the most highly trained operators. Off-duty carry is very much a US thing, and probably exists only because of the overall RKBA culture.

    • “A rather horrifying story about this topic . . . not for the weak of stomach.”

      You got that right.

      The book he is referring to is ‘Day of Wrath’ by William R. Forstchen.

      Forstchen is the author of ‘One Second After (an EMP attack on the US), in ‘Day of Wrath’, he lays out how an ISIS attack on a US elementary school would play out.

      A brutal description of children and other people being slaughtered.

      It is *not* a nice book, the heroes *do not* all win in the end.

      I *highly* recommend you read this short-ish novel.

  14. The US is not a police state. When the democrats come for your guns like they are in California then you may have point.

    The french have not been fighters for their own freedom in the past. When Paris fell to the National Socialist most of the French military was still untouched. They were very capable of continuing the fight.
    Most of France was untouched by the German army in 1940.

    The french quit. They don’t have a history of fighting to victory for the own freedom. These people are a ” free stuff” socialist society. As in the socialist state of California, the French will give up liberty for security.

    In California they can enjoy Marijuana intoxication to take their pain away. In France they can drink lots of wine for their pain.

    If they had policed their on borders the killers would not have gotten into the country. And if these “guests” of the country could have been tracked, perhaps they could be found a lot sooner.
    Several 911 skyjacker visas expired several months before they caused an American holocaust.

    But libertarians and socialist both agree. They don’t support national border enforcement. Rapists and murders should be able to freely travel from country to country.

    If you can’t complete a back ground check you can’t get a gun at least legally.
    But if you can’t complete a back ground check 3000 miles away from the USA. You still get to come here legally any way?

    • Actually libertarians argue the issue vehemently. Those who view the country as a contract among the citizens hold that no one should be allowed in without the consent of those signatory to that contract. Some even argue that the states on the border have the right to close the border into their state.

      Personally I think border states should purchase the first twenty yards of land inside the border from Mexico, make it a state park, and ask for volunteers to build a wall and serve as armed, volunteer park rangers.

    • States that create unconstitutional laws,ignore the constitution,and enforce such laws should be invaded by the US and forced to conform to the constitution,I see what california and other states are doing is very unconstitutional. The second amendment is very short and to the point,states that deny people their second amendment rights are denying people their civil rights and should be denied any federal funding until they fall in line and obey the law.

        • Lincoln didn’t have much choice: he either let tyranny take over half the country he was elected to lead, or he would end up invading the South. He could have tried a blockade, but the South could have arranged for goods through Mexico, getting angry enough to attack the North anyway. Besides which, he had to take on South Carolina anyway, because they’d attacked U.S. property, and the moment he did that the rest of the South would have rallied around.

          However much the idea of just letting the South go might attract some people looking backwards, there was really no option but to go to war. If you had a time machine and wanted to go back and keep it from happening, you’d need a way to be the wealthiest person on the planet, richer than the British Empire at the time probably, to successfully influence events — and the way to do that would be by supplying the slave owners with “inventions” that would have made slavery obviously a losing proposition.

  15. We’re not a police state until we can no longer put comments on sites like this bemoaning what a police state we live in.

    We can use trannysoreass as a canary in the coal mine. When he gets stood against a wall and shot for making comments approving of American soldiers being killed and calling their killers freedom fighters then we’ll know it’s a police state.

    Until then, not.

    • So long as the police shelter the bad guys among them, so long as the police can arrest people first and invent charges after, and so long as any innocent people get railroaded into jail or prison by a system that has forgotten that it is better to allow a thousand guilty to walk free rather than one innocent to be punished, we are already a police state.

    • “…it is better to allow a thousand guilty to walk free rather than one innocent to be punished.”….. Which again emphasises the other point i made earlier…. You can say these things but if an open-border/pro-illegal type says “…it is better to allow a thousand guilty to walk free rather than one innocent to be punished,” we would scream our heads off…… Enough with the lofty bumper sticker slogans and calling other people “baby killers” and “nazis”….. You guys sound like libs.

      • You can let the “one thousand guilty” free just as long as the rest of us are allowed to not only carry firearms Openly or Concealed 24/7/365 but are also guaranteed we will face no penalties for making them “good” if they “cross the line”.

      • Ditto Russia.

        There’s still a line there, but it’s more about how many people hear you complain. If it’s a Facebook comment, no-one cares. If it’s a blog or a website with thousands of visitors every day, is when you get hit by a charge of “promoting extremism” or some such.

  16. Let’s see.

    The ultra wealthy don’t care as long as they keep their privileges and their wealth; they’re the only ones that count in their minds, anyway.

    The middle class will mostly shrug in the belief that if they “haven’t done anything wrong”, they don’t have to worry.

    The poor, as at present, have no recourse in the legal system anyway because they can’t afford it; we have, as we have had for some time, justice for those with a large amount of disposable income and no one else.

    So those who ought to be responsible citizens, and those who have the most to lose, and those who will suffer the most, will not oppose increased powers for the existing police state.

  17. A Paris style attack will not change anything. Not enough killed. We have periodic regional lockdowns now, such as when the murderers escaped from the penetentiary in upstate NY a few months ago. The real question is what happens in the US if the attack is with a dirty bomb, or if they spray nerve gas in a dozen subway stations and kill thousands. I would say that Congress will pass a Declaration of War against the Islamic State, and it will be December 8, 1941. The roundups will begin immediately. I suspect it will be very different in the big cities, where the attack will doubtless have happened, and where the terrorists and co-conspirators live, from the ex-urbs, smaller towns, and rural areas, where life will likely go on pretty much as usual. I also will be not be surprised if they find some really bad stuff going on in the basements of certain mosques that have been under surveillance, and if they find nothing, I expect the evidence has already been created and is waiting to be planted.

    • It’s not just the numbers that matter, it’s also the targets. Yes, after 9/11, the bar has been set high. But imagine an organized Kenya mall style attack on, say, several elementary schools across the country, with methodical slaughter until the last moment, and maybe even using signature Daesh execution methods like beheading (and videotaping all that & streaming it in real time). I don’t see anything that could prevent such an attack, and even if they only kill, say, 100 children, I think the outcry would in many ways be worse than after 9/11.

    • Most countries don’t have the pervasive government surveillance and spying like the US has. Mostly because they simply don’t have the means. Some countries do have the means, but refuse because they know it is wrong (Germany, Switzerland).

      Most countries don’t run a vast prison system, created by the criminalization of anything deemed offensive to politicians. In fact, the US is unique in the first world for this, with no appreciable drop in crime compared to other first world nations.

      Those would be my main two points. Other points include the mountain of bureaucratic regulation, the erosion of economic and property rights, the disappearance of the 4th amendment.

  18. Jeff the Griz wrote on November 24, 2015 at 12:46 hours:
    “The NSA already has a list of every person that has posted on TTAG anyways.”

    Oh, WELL.

    “And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a study in black and white of my fingerprints.”
    —Arlo Guthrie, ‘Alice’s Restaurant Massacree’

  19. A Paris/Mumbai style attack won’t lead to a USA police state, but when the jihadis light off a few nukes in America, then you will have your police state. Awful, and probably inevitable.

  20. Remember this: In most states when “Martial Law” or a “State of Emergency” is declared ALL sales of firearms, ammunition, AND alcohol are PROHIBITED!

    Stock up now, buy MORE guns, cases of ammo, magazines and don’t forget the booze after all what fun is there to be had when society is about to collapse and you can’t get shit-faced and fire wildly into the air.

  21. BTW: What the hell is going on with the clock to “edit” comments? Last comment I posted allowed only 35 seconds after being uploaded to correct any errors (damn Adobe plug-in’s are still giving me problems).

  22. jwm says:
    November 25, 2015 at 09:16

    Question:It certainly was a constitutional matter. The south violated the rights of the slaves by making and keeping them slaves. Southerners engaged in torture, murder, rape and a whole list of crimes that were a constant and ongoing violation of the constitutional rights of an entire segment of their population.

    If your neighber shot you and forced your wife and daughter into his home as sex slaves would he be able to tell the responding police that he no longer recognised the authority of the union and had decided to secede? That’s exactly what the southern states did.

    Answer:Slaves didn’t have constitutional rights,how could they be violated? Slaves weren’t even considered to be human,much less citizens. The issue of slavery wasn’t what the civil war was fought over,the issue of slavery expanding beyond the Southern states was one of the issues.Lincoln didn’t have a problem with actual slavery until he decided he wanted blacks in the union army.If slavery was the issue,why did he wait until 1863 to issue the emancipation proclamation? If my neighbor shot me and kidnapped my wife and daughter and made slaves out of them,the Confederate government would have stepped in and handled it.The Confederates had their own government,military,police,and constitution that read almost word for word as the US constitution.The only difference in the CSA’s constitution was the slavery issue.

    • So a person born in the US, as many of the slaves were, had no rights under the constitution? What a slave was considered, human or not, by the criminals holding them illegally has no bearing on the black citizens rights.

      If the criminal confederate states, a nation that only existed in the minds of the criminals engaged in the wholesale violations of the black citizens rights, had a constitution similar to the legal constitution that covered all states, including theirs, why were they still engaged in illegal activites towards their fellow black citizens.

      Any way you storm front types twist it the war was fought because the confederate states(A criminal orgination like the cartels and the mafia) wanted to continue with their unfettered rape, murder and abuse and like crimanls everywhere they were willing to use violence when the representatives of the legal .gov attempted to intercede.

      The real failure on the part of the Federal .gov was not trying and hanging slave owners and their criminal bosses in the so called confederate .gov. A lot of people got away with murder, rape, torture and enforced bondage that should have faced justice.

      • You err in assuming that what slave owners did to their property could be called, under law, rape or assault or anything else. The Constitution itself acknowledged them as not being full persons. There was no legal ground for arresting and hanging slave owners for much of anything they did to was under law was their property.

        Now, if there had been a successful slave rebellion, and they’d had Adams to argue for them as he did for a shipload of blacks earlier, it would be an interesting question if the established right to insurrection against tyranny would have served for them to prevail. Part of the reason Adams won that case was that the blacks in question were not yet slaves under U.S. law, regardless of what they were under French law. I would hope that their right to insurrection against tyranny would have been upheld, but I’m not convinced the SCOTUS of the time would have gone that way.

    • Why is there still a debate over why the South fought the war, when they themselves have made it blatantly clear in their declarations of secession? Here’s Mississippi’s, spelling it out most bluntly:

      “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

      Other states have worded the same sentiment in a more circumspect way in their respective declarations, but the gist was the same.

      You may argue that slavery was not the reason why the North has fought the war (it doesn’t have to be the same reason for both sides), but that is a different conversation.

  23. I doubt it. The FBI has been crying for more resources just to surveil the sketchy subjects they already know of. Moreover, every timebone of these events goes down in the U.S., it’s usually revealed that the suspects were already “known to the police”, or sometimes even known to our intelligence agencies. It’s through sheer incompetence that these 20/20 foresight plots aren’t worse.

    I have no confidence (fear) that the U.S. even could pull off an authentic police state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *