How Much Is Detention of Russian Protestors Undemocratic?

Day 5,227, 11:44 • Published in Russia Russia • by Shayan Rmz

Hello Everyone
It has been a long time since the last time I wrote.
And I don't have the intention to write long.

If you ask me, surely the detention of peaceful protestors is repressive and undemocratic.
But I believe a more accurate answer follows after the analysis of the commonality of such issues.
I invite you to take a few minutes of your precious time and join me in reading a page of the book Paradoxes of Democracy written by Prof. Thomas Dye, a political science professor at Florida State University.

Consider please that Conclusions may vary from person to person and I'm not willing to deliberately change anyone else's mind or impose any ideas on anyone. And I hope everyone acts tolerantly toward opposing ideas in the comment section.


Page 99-100:
Repressive behavior is typical of elites who feel threatened in crises. The Alien and Sedition Acts (179😎, passed in the administration of John Adams, closed down opposition newspapers and jailed their editors. Although most of these Acts expired in 1801, the Alien Enemies Act is still in effect.31 Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus (the requirement that authorities bring defendants before a judge and show cause for their detention) during the Civil War. In the wake of World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which outlawed “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language intended to cause contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute” to the government. Socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs was imprisoned for speaking against the war; his conviction was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, as were convictions of other antiwar protesters of that period.

Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized removal and internment of Japanese-American citizens living on the West Coast. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this flagrant violation of the Constitution. Not until 1988 did the U.S. Congress vote to make reparations and public apologies to the surviving victims.

(I know reading takes a lot of effort, rest your beautiful eyes with some ... beers! ... YES ... beers!)



During the Cold War, the U.S. government prosecuted top leaders of the Soviet-allied Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) for violating the Smith Act, which made it unlawful “to knowingly and willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of overthrowing any government in United States by force or violence.” Again, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their convictions. Not until the 1960s did the Court begin to reassert freedom of expression, including the advocacy of revolution.
In response to the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City in 1995, the U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This law expanded government powers of search, surveillance, and detention in a manner similar to those already granted in the fight against child pornography and organized crime. Following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, Congress moved swiftly to further enhance government authority by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act, officially the Uniting and Strengthening America Act by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism of 2001. President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft successfully lobbied Congress to increase the federal government’s powers of searches, seizures, surveillance, and detention of suspects. The concerns of civil libertarians were largely swept aside. The act was passed nearly unanimously in the Senate (98–1) and overwhelmingly in the House (357–66) with the support of both Democrats and Republicans. Most provisions have been renewed under the Obama administration.

What factors affect a willingness to trade off restrictions on civil liberties in order to provide for safety and security? Political science research suggests that the greater people’s sense of threat, the greater their support for restrictions on civil liberties.32 The lower people’s trust in government, the less willing they are to trade off civil liberties for security. Liberals are less willing to trade off civil liberties than moderates or conservatives. Overall it seems clear the commitment to civil liberties among U.S. adults is highly contingent on their concerns about threats to national or personal security.

P.S. I'm not Russian in real.

Thank you for your time.
Yours Truly
Shayan