Is America a Police state?

[painted wolf]

And in other news.... congress wants to repeal the ban on government propaganda in the USA.

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban

An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.
The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee's official website.
The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.
The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.

The new law would give sweeping powers to the government to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”
According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Critics of the bill point out that there was rigorous debate when Smith Mundt passed, and the fact that this is so “under the radar,” as the Pentagon official puts it, is troubling.
The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

Propaganda was illegal?
Who'da thunk it?

 

[painted wolf]

Propaganda was illegal?
Who'da thunk it?

yeah, I think they generally get by this one via "technicality".... but imagine the fun they could have if the rules were lifted entirely.

We've always been at war with Oceania after all.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

The Food Police wanna take away our big sugary drinkies!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1

 

[Jacksnyte]

 

[Road Warrior]

The Food Police wanna take away our big sugary drinkies!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1

And booze, dagnabit!
Five Wives Vodka ban may bring censorship suit - Salt Lake City Political Buzz | Examiner.com

 

[Revoltingest]

An interesting bill......
House bill extends TSA intel sharing to mass transit - FederalNewsRadio.com

 

[Revoltingest]

N.M. Mom Jailed For Overdue ‘Twilight’ Book, DVDs « CBS Las Vegas

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It probably depends on the crime. If you are of no-danger to others, they throw away the key, but I know a felon who was recently charged with illegal possession of a handgun, and he got one year probation.
And then there is this:
Supreme Court To Review If It's Legal To Resell A Book You Bought Abroad | Techdirt

 

[painted wolf]

gotta' keep that prison industry hoppin'.... it's a major part of our GDP.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

gotta' keep that prison industry hoppin'.... it's a major part of our GDP.
wa:do

I hear a lot about how the prison industrial complex drives political pressure to incarcerate more people,
but this attitude just doesn't trickle down to the cops, lawyers & judges I know. If it were so simple as de-privatizing
the penal system, I could go for it. But gov't has the same incentive, so no cure lurks there. Anyway, I say the cause
behind tossing so many in jail is the widespread illusion that we enhance our security by putting people behind bars.
Of course, I disagree, since prison is not only costly, but serves to abuse people & train them to be more sociopathic.
I blame the simplistic & wrong-headed law & order mentality of our politicians. But we (not me, anyway) elect them.

Oh, regarding the GDP aspect. I know you wuz a josh'n, but I'd say that a big prison system actually reduces our GDP.
Sure, sure, much money is being churned, but nothing of value is being produced.

 

[painted wolf]

I hear a lot about how the prison industrial complex drives political pressure to incarcerate more people,
but this attitude just doesn't trickle down to the cops, lawyers & judges I know. If it were so simple as de-privatizing
the penal system, I could go for it. But gov't has the same incentive, so no cure lurks there. Anyway, I say the cause
behind tossing so many in jail is the widespread illusion that we enhance our security by putting people behind bars.
Of course, I disagree, since prison is not only costly, but serves to abuse people & train them to be more sociopathic.
I blame the simplistic & wrong-headed law & order mentality of our politicians. But we (not me, anyway) elect them.

I doubt there is a simple explanation... but "being tough on crime" is a big selling point for polliticians. When all the crime statistics show that it's going down then maybe you just need to find more things to make a crime, so you can be tough on them. And the stupidity of "three strikes" laws doesn't help.

Oh, regarding the GDP aspect. I know you wuz a josh'n, but I'd say that a big prison system actually reduces our GDP.
Sure, sure, much money is being churned, but nothing of value is being produced.

Kind of like Wall Street.

Prison labor produces $2.4 billion a year in products. An in-depth look at the U.S. Prison Industry | Business Insurance
but that may go up as prisoners have now been sent to work on farms as free labor.

Californian prisons alone account for about 1.6% of the US GDP and we spend around $70 billion a year on police and jails... so it's not an insignificant chunk of money. It may reduce our GDP in the long run, but someone is getting paid that 70 billion and they won't want to give that up.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

Prison labor produces $2.4 billion a year in products. An in-depth look at the U.S. Prison Industry | Business Insurance
but that may go up as prisoners have now been sent to work on farms as free labor.

Californian prisons alone account for about 1.6% of the US GDP and we spend around $70 billion a year on police and jails... so it's not an insignificant chunk of money. It may reduce our GDP in the long run, but someone is getting paid that 70 billion and they won't want to give that up.

Let's set aside the $2.4B in products, since it is a miniscule amount compared to the $70B. Now, consider that $70B is taken from taxpayers, & then
returned to some via spending. If no significant amount of goods is created, then money is just taken from Peter (taxpayers) & given to Paul (prison industry).
It doesn't create any wealth compared to leaving the money with Peter, but of course Paul is quite happy with this exchange, & will vote for politicians
promising him Peters money.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I hear a lot about how the prison industrial complex drives political pressure to incarcerate more people,
but this attitude just doesn't trickle down to the cops, lawyers & judges I know. If it were so simple as de-privatizing
the penal system, I could go for it. But gov't has the same incentive, so no cure lurks there. Anyway, I say the cause
behind tossing so many in jail is the widespread illusion that we enhance our security by putting people behind bars.
Of course, I disagree, since prison is not only costly, but serves to abuse people & train them to be more sociopathic.
I blame the simplistic & wrong-headed law & order mentality of our politicians. But we (not me, anyway) elect them.

While that is true, I can't help but suspect that because private prisons are contractually bound to maintain a minimum of 90% occupancy rate is probably a part to blame, behind the scenes, for any meaningful reform happening, such as keeping nonviolent offenders out of prison. After if the reason over 70% of people are in jail or prison is no longer having them sent to jail or prison, many of these private companies will be finding themselves in breech of contract.
Personally I favor throwing out the current American justice system and starting over from step one, starting with police corruption and abuse, lawyer and judge bribes, "tough-on-crime" politicians, and then restructuring the prison system entirely.

 

[Revoltingest]

While that is true, I can't help but suspect that because private prisons are contractually bound to maintain a minimum of 90% occupancy rate is probably a part to blame, behind the scenes, for any meaningful reform happening, such as keeping nonviolent offenders out of prison. After if the reason over 70% of people are in jail or prison is no longer having them sent to jail or prison, many of these private companies will be finding themselves in breech of contract.
Personally I favor throwing out the current American justice system and starting over from step one, starting with police corruption and abuse, lawyer and judge bribes, "tough-on-crime" politicians, and then restructuring the prison system entirely.

Having written & enforced many contracts, I find it hard to believe that companies running a prison would put themselves in the
position of violating their agreement if the gov't doesn't send them enuf inmates. Is there evidence that contracts are worded this way?
One generally tries to avoid being liable for uncontrolled actions of another.

 

[painted wolf]

Let's set aside the $2.4B in products, since it is a miniscule amount compared to the $70B. Now, consider that $70B is taken from taxpayers, & then
returned to some via spending. If no significant amount of goods is created, then money is just taken from Peter (taxpayers) & given to Paul (prison industry).
It doesn't create any wealth compared to leaving the money with Peter, but of course Paul is quite happy with this exchange, & will vote for politicians
promising him Peters money.

It doesn't hurt when you convince Peter that his neighbors are dangerous and that only the most restrictive and punitive punishments are appropriate. Those vile monsters who take library books must know the swift might of law. Next thing you know they might toke up and then our whole culture falls to chaos.

It's a good thing Peter didn't vote for someone who's all namby-pamby soft on crime.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

More fun with cops.....
Natalie Plummer arrested for holding sign warning drivers about police speed trap | Mail Online

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Having written & enforced many contracts, I find it hard to believe that companies running a prison would put themselves in the
position of violating their agreement if the gov't doesn't send them enuf inmates. Is there evidence that contracts are worded this way?

I don't see how it is at all legal to guarantee there will be inmates, but here are some links:

Private purchasing of prisons locks in occupancy rates

WASHINGTON – At a time when states are struggling to reduce bloated prison populations and tight budgets, a private prison management company is offering to buy prisons in exchange for various considerations, including a controversial guarantee that the governments maintain a 90% occupancy rate for at least 20 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/prison-privatization_b_1414467.html

Thus, with an eye toward increasing its bottom line, CCA has floated a proposal to prison officials in 48 states offering to buy and manage public prisons at a substantial cost savings to the states. In exchange, and here's the kicker, the prisons would have to contain at least 1,000 beds and states would have agree to maintain a 90 percent occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.

So I had it backwards, but it's still terrible that profits are becoming the motive in the criminal-justice system.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that makes more sense than requiring the prison management company to keep it full.
I'd wager that the actual contract language simply provided for extra compensation if occupancy
falls below a certain level. They need profit....not prisoners. The latter is merely endured in
order to earn the former.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm sure the "idea" was that prisoners would be moved out of state run prisons into privately held ones.... but as the nation with the largest percentage of it's population inside prisons, is that really a wise thing to have in a contract?

I know you're not going to argue that the penal system in our country isn't wonky.

wa:do