Even the NY Times can no longer ignore the growing police state in the US. Still, they can always manage to find people to make naive statements like this in order to frame the event as an anomaly:
“The N.Y.P.D. surveillance does not appear to be limited to unlawful activity,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “We count on the police, of course, to be on the lookout for terrorists and terrorism, but to think you could be on that continuum just by going to a peaceful protest is nuts.”Of course, the whole point of creating the terrorist climate of fear by engineering the 9/11 event and all the police/FBI designed entrapments of "terrorists" was to create the conditions for a police state.
Here is another example, this time from the other leading publication (Washington Post) of the ruling One Percent admitting that police state methods have been and are used against environmentalists :
Even as environmental and animal rights extremism in the United States is on the wane, officials at the federal, state and local level are continuing to target groups they have labeled a threat to national security, according to interviews with numerous activists, internal FBI documents and a survey of legislative initiatives across the country.However, the article frames environmental activists as "extremists" and presents the FBI's view that police state methods are successful against "extremists" by causing the decline in these "extremest" activities. Unfortunately, the writer can only cite a few vague examples of the most aggressive forms of actions taken by environmentalists.