> Again if Somalia did this, nobody would care.
I think you've just illustrated his point...Those fucked up states? Those are the actual police states (some of them at least). The whole point is that you can't just gloss over them, that's the injustice. I absolutely agree that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but calling it a police state is hyperbole that's not really helpful.
It's like calling the US a third-world country because you saw a homeless camp. It belies a lack of perspective as to what an actual third-world country is.
But if you read my comment it depends what metric you use to compare. I choose to compare US against what other expect from US and what it should expect from itself. Also US against its historical state (now many would argue this is not looking too good either).
Now another way to look at it is like this -- qualitatively vs quantitatively. It seems to me (and I maybe wrong) that qualitatively we didn't have these provisions to imprison people without trial, to torture them, to assassinate, we weren't supposed to spy on American citizens. This was understood by the government, legislation and citizens in general. What changed is that the legal framework (using weasel words and loopholes) has been shaped to allow these things. Qualitatively one could argue these are the same legal provisions that would allow a police state to exist just by turning up the level of torture, extra judicial killing, indefinite detention, total monitoring and recording. Those are there now.
Now quantitatively. You got to lunch with your friends on Saturday to a cafe in Chicago. Should you be afraid of a drone strike and you'd rather hide in a basement? No. It is not happening. Can you still yell about how stupid the president is? Yes. But my point is, from that reality to this is just a matter of turning up the levels not really building or overcoming a major hurdle of putting together a new legal framework.
You don't live in a police state.
I lived in Cuba for a while. Many people would consider that a police state.
Yet people were free to vocally criticize the government. And they did.
The government tolerated it because they knew those particular people were harmless. It only clamped down on those that posed an actual threat to their authority.
Cuba is an especially interesting case because it's a communist police state which is also a tourist destination for huge amounts of free, affluent Westerners every year. That means that they can't use any of the standard 'scare tactics' of a police state (assuming they would if they could), such as having soldiers policing the street constantly.
I was also told by a guide that they don't allow imagery of the ruling leader (e.g. posters to say 'Hey, Fidel is so great!') because they don't want government to turn into hero worship. After a leader is dead, then their image can be used in 'publicity', but not before.
So Cuba's a really interesting state.
You're right, I saw no Fidel images. Tons of Che.
Actually...no, I did think about posting it. A month or two ago, I wouldn't have. I am actively engaging in censorship. I still posted it, but I did hesitate for a while. What if I have a defense related project in the future? Will they read back to me this comment? It did cross my mind. So by that test well, it got worse certainly.
Did you live in a police state? I have.
What police state calls itself "police state"? Hint: no state calls itself that. There is always a nice fluffy propaganda label slapped on top. "Freedom Loving Republic Of ..."
> Our legislation is currently investigating the president for:
Oh look, two investigations. Do you want a list of all the new developments that have been happening recently with leaks. I suspect you are familiar with them.
> I don't see a police state, and I think being cavalier with terminology
I see the beginning of one. Police states don't often turn police states overnight. There is a slow process of erosion going on.
> does a grave injustice to lessons of the past and the people who have experienced (and are experiencing) a totalitarian government with truly no checks and balances.
For one, it depends what you compare it to. You choose to compare against other states. Ok there are lot of fucked up states. So still doing well there. Now there is another way to compare and to compare a country by its own propaganda, that is what people want or believe that country to be. "We love freedom" (yet we imprison and assassinate people without a trial). "We love privacy" (yet we spy on everyone). "We respect human right" (yet we torture people). Should I continue? Another way to compare is historically, compare US against US say 15 years ago. I would say things got worse.
Again if Somalia did this, nobody would care. When US does this, it is very serious. People expect more from US and US has more power. So a 500 lb gorilla not behaving nicely is a lot worse than an angry dog.