Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
53. There was a place called East Germany, had a police force called the Stasi. They operated
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:58 PM
Jun 2016

under that philosophy, that the safety of the state, the safety they were ordered to keep, was more important than your right to anything.
Heck of a philosophy - "If you see something, say something" - but no one argued that they were safer.

We aren't safer when our own politicians swear allegiance to such action either.

Here's an excerpt of a review of "Stasi
The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police"



REVENGE VERSUS
THE RULE OF LAW

"Worse than the Gestapo." —Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi hunter


Less than a month after German demonstrators began to tear down the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, irate East German citizens stormed the Leipzig district office of the Ministry for State Security (MfS)—the Stasi, as it was more commonly called. Not a shot was fired, and there was no evidence of "street justice" as Stasi officers surrendered meekly and were peacefully led away. The following month, on January 15, hundreds of citizens sacked Stasi headquarters in Berlin. Again there was no bloodshed. The last bit of unfinished business was accomplished on May 31 when the Stasi radioed its agents in West Germany to fold their tents and come home.
...
The people's ire was running equally strong against the regular Stasi informers, the inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (IMs). By 1995, 174,000 had been identified as IMs, or 2.5 percent of the total population between the ages of 18 and 60. Researchers were aghast when they found that about 10,000 IMs, or roughly 6 percent of the total, had not yet reached the age of 18. Since many records were destroyed, the exact number of IMs probably will never be determined; but 500,000 was cited as a realistic figure. Former Colonel Rainer Wiegand, who served in the Stasi counterintelligence directorate, estimated that the figure could go as high as 2 million, if occasional stool pigeons were included.

"The Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people," according to Simon Wiesenthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. "The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million." One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.

To ensure that the people would become and remain submissive, East German communist leaders saturated their realm with more spies than had any other totalitarian government in recent history. The Soviet Union's KGB employed about 480,000 full-time agents to oversee a nation of 280 million, which means there was one agent per 5,830 citizens. Using Wiesenthal's figures for the Nazi Gestapo, there was one officer for 2,000 people. The ratio for the Stasi was one secret policeman per 166 East Germans. When the regular informers are added, these ratios become much higher: In the Stasi's case, there would have been at least one spy watching every 66 citizens! When one adds in the estimated numbers of part-time snoops, the result is nothing short of monstrous: one informer per 6.5 citizens. It would not have been unreasonable to assume that at least one Stasi informer was present in any party of ten or twelve dinner guests.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/koehler-stasi.html

The knee-jerk response is that we are different. I submit we are one election away from moving further down that road than we ever thought.

I think. Because we have already gone down the path a little too far.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

So the ACLU puts rights above safety scscholar Jun 2016 #1
I really really hope this is sarcasm. tritsofme Jun 2016 #3
Except they don't REP Jun 2016 #7
They admit in their quote that "freedom from unlawful searches" and "due process..." scscholar Jun 2016 #9
Still hoping this is sarcasm n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #10
Do you know latin? sarisataka Jun 2016 #11
Sorry, but that's the wave of the future. Igel Jun 2016 #40
Or knee jerk reaction that if it's a ferin language it must be bad greiner3 Jun 2016 #73
Fine. You can let LEO search your home without a warrant. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #29
I already do have to allow random, warrantless searches. scscholar Jun 2016 #36
That's untrue. They must give 24 hours notice before entering except in cases of emergency. REP Jun 2016 #37
Pesky facts again Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #41
I know. I'm such an ass for dragging those into the discussion! REP Jun 2016 #42
Laughable. The landlord inspecting his property is *not* the government. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #55
It is *not* the landlord doing the inspection scscholar Jun 2016 #58
Building inspections are not "Unreasonable" searches under law. They aren't even a search. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #66
So, a government employee searching your home is not a search? scscholar Jun 2016 #71
I see now, you are being deliberately obtuse. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #72
Guess you're not from the "give me liberty or give me death" crowd? thesquanderer Jun 2016 #39
if this isn't sarcasm you have truly went off the deep end AntiBank Jun 2016 #50
There was a place called East Germany, had a police force called the Stasi. They operated jtuck004 Jun 2016 #53
A compromise hardluck Jun 2016 #74
So did everyone that signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #22
No that's what democracy is all about. Innocent until proven guilty. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #30
Maybe "Safety at all costs!" works for you. Not for me. cheapdate Jun 2016 #34
It seems that suspending due process is fine as long as it only applies to certain people REP Jun 2016 #38
Let me tell you something then! Dustlawyer Jun 2016 #59
Much as they did with Citizens United. LanternWaste Jun 2016 #68
As it should. nt LWolf Jun 2016 #69
I side with the ACLU Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #2
Right on JackInGreen Jun 2016 #4
ACLU's letter to Senators - full text jtx Jun 2016 #5
K&R n/t X_Digger Jun 2016 #6
I am very very pro gun control choie Jun 2016 #8
The watchlisting system is no more accurate Downwinder Jun 2016 #12
B... but, GUNZ!! Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #13
Plenty of liberals own guns n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #14
Me included. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #17
My bad SickOfTheOnePct Jun 2016 #19
Not at all. A due reminder. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #25
Yes of course, lol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #21
The requirements of prohibition are bashing the Constitution. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #23
That's how I think of it. Igel Jun 2016 #43
When did everyone embrace the no fly list? TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #15
Some of us citizens is getting randomly killed. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #20
Your response is nonsensical. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #27
This is about preserving the 2nd Amendment unimpeded. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #31
There are hundreds of things we could do that don't violate the 5th Amendment, or the 4th, etc NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #32
The known or suspected terrorists on the 'no fly list'... yallerdawg Jun 2016 #35
So you think that this super-secret government list TeddyR Jun 2016 #45
The Collins amendment. yallerdawg Jun 2016 #47
Apologies TeddyR Jun 2016 #49
'Known or suspected terrorists'... like Senator Edward Kennedy? John Poet Jun 2016 #64
When Obama took office. When Bush crapped on the Constitution, BAD! Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #24
It really gives lie to their claim of principles, doesn't it? X_Digger Jun 2016 #33
It's infuriating. These people are calling themselves Democrats. Ikonoklast Jun 2016 #54
It has to start with something IronLionZion Jun 2016 #52
ACLU- sarisataka Jun 2016 #16
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. baldguy Jun 2016 #18
How 'bout that Cornyn (R)? Why, I never knew. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #26
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #28
The city of Chicago TeddyR Jun 2016 #46
Piss on due process...lock those fuckers up now! jmg257 Jun 2016 #48
And this "trial by jury" nonsense LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #56
Not being able to buy a gun **IS NOT** equivalent to being put in prison. baldguy Jun 2016 #63
So supporting due process TeddyR Jun 2016 #67
. baldguy Jun 2016 #70
There right UnFettered Jun 2016 #44
I bet a lot of people forgot about the no fly list issues IronLionZion Jun 2016 #51
I have to agree with the ACLU bluestateguy Jun 2016 #57
weren't these the guys blowing money on suing an elementary school for MisterP Jun 2016 #60
ACLU wants to protect civil liberties Democat Jun 2016 #61
Yeah, I'm an old Democrat, but new to DU, LongtimeAZDem Jun 2016 #75
Yet more sabotage dickthegrouch Jun 2016 #62
Shills for the NRA...don't they realize rights are overrated? ileus Jun 2016 #65
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»ACLU's Most Recent Statem...»Reply #53