My how things have changed.

[MadHound]

This past week we saw just how our civil liberties have been tossed out the window. We saw multiple houses raided, without cause, without warrant. We saw an entire community essentially put under martial law, though it went by the kinder, gentler term of "shelter in place". Now, we are seeing the spectacle of a suspect, who is being arrested for a crime, being denied his Miranda rights due to something new in the past few years, the Public Safety Exception.

Worse than all this is the willing, even cowed acceptance of all of this. People are saying that this was a special circumstance, but the fact of the matter is that if our civil liberties don't apply in the most extreme of circumstance, they simply won't apply in even normal circumstances.

Did we see any of this on display during the OKC bombing, Ruby Ridge, Waco? No, because such concepts were foreign to our conception of law enforcement. Yes, the Public Safety exception was in play, but in very limited form, certainly not we're seeing now, a forty eight hour free pass to grill a suspect about any and everything. Shelter in place was meant as a suggestion that one should follow in the case of bad weather or release of a hazardous material, not as a method to lockdown an entire community so that a house to house set of raids could take place. And those raids themselves are based on a radically expanded definition of the legal concept of "exigent circumstance", a concept that was originally intended to be used when a suspect is being hotly pursued, but now has been morphed into allowing the police to take their time, going door to door, for hours on end.

All of these attacks on our civil liberties have taken place in the last twelve years since 9/11. Our fear, our panic has allowed the state to seize these liberties and so many others. This was exactly what was on display last week, the triumph of the post 9/11 mindset, of what happens when our population tries to make the devil's deal of trading liberty for safety. Worse, with the triumphant rollout of these new concepts, they are going to continue to creep into our lives. How soon before there is a Public Safety exception applied to every crime? How soon before we see houses regularly searched under the Exigent Circumstances exception?

Perhaps, hopefully, with further reflection, the American public will demand that these civil liberties be returned. Sadly though, given our past history, I doubt it. The prevailing mood seems to be that the loss of civil liberties is somehow, someway justified, and if you're not a terrorist, why should you care. Perhaps people will finally start caring when these exceptions become the norm in our land. By then though, of course, it will be too late.

[Logical]

1. People will wrongly give up liberties to feel safer. And people 100% trust the Police/FBI. n-t

[MadHound]

5. Actually there are large swathes of the population that don't trust law enforcement.

Lots of distrust in the African American community, other minorities and groups that have traditionally been persecuted by the police. The most amount of such trust is found in middle class white communities.

[Logical]

14. So true. n-t

[bvar22]

136. "And people 100% trust the Police/FBI"

I hope you are kidding with this.
Nobody can be THAT naive.

[Logical]

174. Too much officer friendly shit and TV shows showing perfect cops. n-t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

198. What's worse, there are those who will unnecessarily give up other people's liberties to feel safer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. But..but..now were safe and our liberties are protected!

[whathehell]

44. But..but...You don't live in Boston, do you?

Maybe you should let them weigh the actions of their police force.

Just sayin'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. What's stopping them from "weighing in"?

[whathehell]

91. Maybe they're out celebrating today, rather than pissing & moaning on the internet?

Just a thought.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. Which is where you are.

Pissing and moaning at people who prefer civil liberties to "safety".

[whathehell]

106. And where you are as well..

The difference being that I'm not pissing and moaning -- You are.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. No, I'm not.

I'm commenting on certain peoples' willingness to give up their constitutional rights without a whimper and actually embrace the act.

[whathehell]

118. Nice spin, LOL.

[sabrina 1]

204. Aren't you pissing and moaning on the internet about people pissing and moaning about Civil

Civil liberties? I guess I am too. I kind of like our originalt, before 9/11, Constitutional protections. I believed that we would not give them up so easily. I pissed and moaned throughout the eight, nightmare years of Bush taking away our Civil Liberties in return for 'safety and security'. Ten years later, it seems like giving up all those Civil Liberties the terrorists supposedly hated us for, didn't stop this latest mass murder, or the one in Newton, or the one before that.

So, now I'm on the internet pissing and moaning about how giving up our Civil Liberties so easily hasn't made us safer at all.

And you are pissing and moaning on the internet about people like me wondering why we keep giving up more of our liberties in the vain hope that we will be safer, when the evidence is clear that we are not.

[Fumesucker]

209. I was not as optimistic as you, we long ago gave up the fourth amendment for the drug war

It was really only a matter of time before all the other liberties were assaulted also, a national security state is a one way ratchet, it always tightens and never loosens unless it is broken which always involves significant social upheaval.

[whathehell]

214. If that's what you call responding to "pissing and moaning", I guess so.

I agree that our civil liberties and constitutional protections have been slipping away, and I don't like it at all,

but like many others here, I do NOT think the actions of the BPD are indicative of that, and I find

attempts to make them "fit" into that narrative absurd.

Like most in the area they served, I think they did a damned good job. Period. .

[sabrina 1]

243. It's not the actual methods while the suspects were still loose with bombs and weapons that

are of concern. Of course it was necessary to try to find them before any more people were killed.

I believe it is the aftermath, now that they are no longer a threat, the calls for abandoning the Constitutional rights of all suspects eg, some Congressional Extremists demanding the suspect be named an 'enemy combatant' and other Congressional Extremists demanding he have no defense at all, is the latest I have heard.

Once he was in custody and they were sure there was no more threat, there should be no more discussion about how the case goes forward. We have a judicial system that should be applied to him and to anyone who is accused of any crime, even the most heinous.

Instead we have people running around demanding vigilante 'justice'. I guess it's there way of trying to be relevant in some way, to show how 'tough' they are behind their computer screens. As for our law makers, I can't for the life of me understand where they are coming from. Their oath of office clearly states that their main function is to protect and defend the US Constitution. It says nothing about 'except when you are really, really angry at a suspect'.

[whathehell]

258. I understand you now, and yes, I agree, certainly insofar as his not being

served "vigilante" justice" or being named an "enemy combatant".

My only concerns are that there may still be other bombs waiting to explode, and/or

other people, as yet unnamed, who are part of a larger network that could carry

out more death and destruction. To the extent that those possibilities exist, I'm not

sure I disagree with not Mirandizing him or otherwise treating him under the "special"

terms that exist for one who is a public danger. It goes without saying, of course, that

I am against the use of torture for any reason.

[sabrina 1]

265. Yes, there are those concerns, that there may be others. And I agree with you. It's possible to be

sensible about a situation like this without throwing away all of our rights. That is what people are concerned about I think, that fear can be used to diminish rights.

I too am totally opposed to torture, aside from the fact that most professional intelligence agents have said over and over again that it does not work.

Thanks for your response, I understand your position better now also.

[whathehell]

269. Good. I'm glad, but not surprised to see that we're in agreement.

I had a feeling it was just a misunderstanding, and I appreciate your reaching out to me as well.

[DeSwiss]

130. +1000

[demcoat]

157. But if we give up our freedoms

the terrorists wont have any need to attack us. This is genius

[reformist2]

3. The pro-police-state reaction here has been shameful.

[whathehell]

60. "pro police state"? "shameful"?

For a brief time it was done to PROTECT PEOPLE, whereupon they CAPTURED the mofo -- alive!

Would you rather that you or they be DEAD or Injured?

I'm guessing the answer is "no", and if you can envision a BETTER

alternative to that situation, why not TELL us about it now?

Seriously...Enquiring minds want to know.

[TwilightZone]

116. Perhaps you should do some research on what is and is not a police state.

Here's a clue. Police + state does not = police state, except algebraically.

[whathehell]

123. LOL!

[Richardo]

235. Thank you.

+ :lol:

[datasuspect]

4. the glurge-laden police fluffing here almost seems

like it's paid for.

or people are REALLY JUST THAT STUPID.

[just1voice]

203. It's likely both; it's paid for and people are that propagandized

I like the term "glurge-laden", well said.

[geek tragedy]

231. Option C--they know stuff you don't. Nt

[LWolf]

6. Yes.

That so many are okay with the loss of civil liberties is deeply disturbing. That so many HERE are is even more so.

[Dustlawyer]

145. They have been steeped in Jack Baur "24"

with nuclear bombs going off in U.S. cities! So many shows where cops violate civil rights b/c they must save someone else. We have been conditioned to this. The money is behind it. They know that we will not like being squeezed more so they are getting things set so that what they will do to us when we revolt and try to get our freedoms back including our Representative Government back. I mean, does anyone here dispute the fact that huge sums of money have corrupted our whole political process? We have highly selective prosecution/enforcement of the law where banks are too big to prosecute. Anyone with power and money will not be charged.
I am grateful that the bombers appear to have been accounted for and I want the remaing one to be treated according to our laws, including the ones that should be protecting him. Once you get on that slippery slope of making exceptions, excuses, justifications, you lose your protections. It may be you next!

[nobodyspecial]

7. No raids. No martial law. Citizens wanted to help police to do their jobs.

Show me stories of people refusing entry and being raided anyway. Show me the mass arrests for disobeying martial law.

And tell me, how in the hell do you explain cheering and clapping and thanking of all those involved after the arrest was made? Funny reaction for people who were so violated as you claim.

You clearly have a narrative and are going to twist this in an attempt to fit it. Problem is, it doesn't.

And since you're clearly an expert in terrorism and law enforcement, what should have been the response?

[CountAllVotes]

11. +1

N/T

[MadHound]

13. So, can we allow the police to question you without your Miranda rights in play,

Say the next time you get pulled over for a DUI, or speeding ticket?

That is where this is all leading, and if you don't see that, you're blind.

Tell me, what is the difference between the OKC bombing and the Boston bombing that allows our civil liberties to be so violated? Oh, yeah, the examples, exceptions and laws that were made post 9/11. The supremacy of the the Patriot Act and its successors. And yet you willingly, even joyfully accept this as necessary for safety.

You know what was said about those who are willing to trade liberty to safety. . .

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. OH BULLSHIT

What a fucking joke. If anything, this BURNISHED the concept of your civil rights. Cops came looking, cops found, cops went away, and everyone is back to the malls and restaurants and their gardens and whatever the fuck.

Supply evidence that anything other than finding TERRORISTS was done, or is being done, or LIGHTEN UP, FRANCIS.

[whathehell]

40. +10

As I asked another who apparently concurs with the OP:

"You ARE fucking kidding me, aren't you"?

[MadHound]

125. Wow, that's Orwellian

Chipping away at civil liberties is actually burnishing them.


Sacrificing liberty for safety, you're doing it right.

[Arkana]

149. Not every police action is part of a conspiracy to erode civil liberties.

Sorry that you feel that it has to be in order to fit your own warped worldview.

[woo me with science]

128. Creepy, creepy, creepy words.

The ends justify the means.

Creepy and authoritarian as hell.

[Dreamer Tatum]

131. Said the person safe as a kitten. nt

[woo me with science]

133. Authoritarianism always wraps itself in "safety." nt

[westerebus]

36. "The *next* time you get pulled over for a DUI or speeding ticket".

Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?

Driver: Officer the reason i was speeding was because i was late for my DUI hearing.

Officer: Really?

Driver: It's OK. I still have my drivers license but the car's a rental. I borrowed it from a friend.

[TwilightZone]

50. What do Miranda rights have to do with speeding tickets?

Do you think that the cops read you your rights before asking how fast you were going?

This might be the most ridiculous thing I've seen all week.

[treestar]

74. Once you have been pulled over, you are no longer a danger

with your speeding and drunken driving.

[bornskeptic]

112. I've had several speeding tickets in my 64 years, but no cop ever read me my Miranda rights. So what

There is no requirement that an arrested person be read his Miranda rights. If he's not, any self-incriminating statements will be inadmissible as evidence. If the FBI was looking for self-incriminating statements, they would read him the rights to forestall legal challenges over the use of such statements. They have plenty of evidence to convict him already. THey are only after information that might prevent further deaths and injuries.

[DeSwiss]

132. Miranda's for arrests. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

153. Your problem was that you we not driving fast enough to get arrested.

Do that and you may have an opportunity for a new experience.

[former9thward]

163. Yes there is a requirement if you are arrested.

If you get a speeding ticket you are detained for as long as it takes to write a ticket but you are not put in custody. Once you are put in custody Miranda kicks in.

[Logical]

16. Nothing says Terrorists win like shutting down a city for ONE suspect. The next.....

idiots wanting to do this will love knowing two people can shut down a city.

[jsr]

86. For a 19-year-old punk.

Greg Ball, New York State Senator, On Boston Suspect: 'Who Wouldn't Use Torture On This Punk'?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/greg-ball-torture_n_3122524.html

[yewberry]

101. Consider this alternate read of the situation:

Don't you dare fuck with my city, because if you do, we will stop whatever we are doing, put all eyes on you, and find your ass.

[TwilightZone]

117. That makes too much sense.

We can't have that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

156. If that made sense, they would do that for the Banksters who caused more harm to Boston than the

the bombers.

[yewberry]

184. Stay on topic, please. nt

[whathehell]

162. That's a far better & more realistic read, but much too positive for the sack cloth & ashes crowd

here...Those now bemoaning the "police state".

As I've said to some others, the OP and a few of the posts on this thread are

proof positive to me, that for some, there can BE no Silver Lining, no sir, not without

without a fully articulated Cloud accompanying it.

This is "Amerika", after all, so regardless of the situation, one must NEVER

feel happy, or worse yet, proud, about anything, ever, for more than a second.

[Mojorabbit]

71. Well

I did watch on streaming tv an innocent person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time get stripped naked and hauled away in a police car for questioning. Just sayin. If I were a cop and was on the lookout for someone with explosives possibly strapped to chest after a protracted shootout, I don't know that I would not have done the same and let the chips fall where they may.
On the other hand, I deplore the slow march to a police state we are on.

[zeemike]

82. The fact that there were people clapping and cheering

Is what is disturbing for me.
You may not understand this, but it is no appropriate behaviour for that situation IMHO.
And no need for me to explain that...you should already know why.
This is not a sporting event.

[Union Scribe]

216. That was relief and/or appreciation. Not sporting joy.

C'mon.

[whathehell]

234. All true. As you said, though, they are ignoring the obvious if it doesn't fit their narrative.

I don't believe I've seen a more pathetic "fail" in all the years I've been here.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. The situation in Boston is desperate, I agree

Tanks on every corner...cops kicking down doors every couple of minutes...people dragged onto the streets and executed without accusation or trial...

...oh, wait. NONE OF THAT SHIT IS HAPPENING NOW THAT TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN KILLED OR CAUGHT.

[Logical]

17. LOL, AFTER the safe harbor was lifted. Funny how that worked. n-t

[whathehell]

30. Sure, because who doesn't want to take a stroll through an area with gunfire and bombs going off?

You ARE fucking kidding me, aren't you?

[Logical]

52. Yes, they were going off all fucking day. LOL, keep trying. n-t

[whathehell]

68. Ask the inured & the families of the dead if they would have waited "all fucking day"

to avoid injury or their loved one's death, had they the chance.

Sorry, bro, looks like YOU should "keep trying".

[Logical]

76. Jesus, notice how they CANCELLED it Friday when the asshat was STILL LOOSE! WHY? Why cancel it....

when nightfall was coming and he was still at large?

[whathehell]

89. Sure..Questions like this certainly outweigh values like lives saved and a killer captured, right?

You're the kind of genius who would criticize someone who solved world hunger

by accusing him of promoting obesity.

Glad too see your values and priorities are in order, Bro!

[Logical]

93. Once again, if the threat was there all day Friday, why was it not there Friday night? Wow,

you are the type that does not think deeply on topics. n-t

[whathehell]

102. Since you clearly don't do subtlety, let me put it in a manner you can understand..

The question is mildly interesting, yes, but hardly the "deal killer" you

seem to imagine it as in relation to the great job the police did in this instance.


In addition, I find it hilarious that you think the question is reflective of "thinking deeply" on the topic.

[Logical]

104. Once again. No answer to the question. Let me know when you have one. n-t

[whathehell]

113. Once again..It's a lame question whose answer, whatever it is, won't cut it for you, bro!

So besides you, who cares?


In the unlikely instance that someone from THE AREA IN QUESTION answers your question

or shares your complaint, be sure to let us all know.

[Logical]

171. I get it. You got nothing. Nice to see you also think it was silly! n-t

[whathehell]

181. Aw, gee. I'm crushed especially since I DID did get an explanation, lame gage of the BPD as it is.

Oh well, you'd probably just trash it out of hand anyway

[bornskeptic]

119. I can't answer that, but it was great timing, wasn't it?

If they'd waited a few hours longer, the suspect might well have bled to death.

[MADem]

135. Because they figured he'd lost enough blood to be weak and easy to take....and they were right.

They knew he had a significant wound--there was blood by the abandoned car.

I think they were hoping he'd try running, and they'd rely on the eyes and ears of people who would notice a bloody and weakened teenager.

[reformist2]

19. Except people were ordered out of their homes.

[Wellstone ruled]

9. Owell's 1984

[Ron Green]

21. More like Huxley's "Brave New World." n/t

[CrispyQ]

10. They're easing us into it.

Shelter in place & the Public Safety Exception are steps along the way. And it's working. Even on a liberal board most people are on board with this.

...the fact of the matter is that if our civil liberties don't apply in the most extreme of circumstance, they simply won't apply in even normal circumstances.

Well said.

[treestar]

77. Both of those existed before this

This was a unique situation. Your highlighted part is simply not true. Note the places where people had their civil liberties violated and had to evacuate due to a hurricane are back there and the rules of law prevail.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

158. "liberal board" Some of us may be liberals but it is clear that many on this board are not.

Many just post here to be derisive and disrupt. Way too many.

[lumpy]

161. Who the hell is "they"? Who are these people who want to take away our civil liberties?

n

[AnotherMcIntosh]

199. "They" seem to include these guys:

[CrispyQ]

249. TPTB, the 1%, the corporate elite, the Koch brothers,

you know, the ones who own our government officials & the media. A lot of unrest comes from economic inequality & we are close to the peak of imbalance. They've pushed millions into poverty. They've decimated the middle class. They are sucking the country dry. They will wait until it's absolutely necessary to clamp down, but they will not hesitate to do so if they feel the proles are about to revolt.


"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery..."
~Zappa

[GitRDun]

12. Hmmmm

I had the understanding that the shelter in place was voluntary. I also thought the cooperation was rooted in a realistic belief there was an armed killer in the area. Given the events of the prior evening and the knowledge of the marathon bombing, you'd have to be pretty brave or something to go out during that manhunt.

Lastly, the public safety exception is pretty limited as to what types of questions it applies to.

I completely agree that we have been complacent as a society allowing the government to trim back privacy, some personal freedoms.

I just cannot pragmatically look at the Watertown situation as an example. Maybe you have a point in shutting down Boston, but given the circumstances, I don't think it's so clear cut.

[datasuspect]

32. there is always an armed killer in your area

wherever you are.

[whathehell]

38. Oh, please..

if the cops had done any less, the same people would

be screaming about how "stupid" and incompetent they were not to protect the public.

Just remember folks: In America, EVERY Silver Lining must

have a Cloud -- it's enshrined somewhere.



I'll be damned if this isn't one of the dumbest, most OBVIOUS attempts I've seen of that "Rule" in awhile.

[datasuspect]

42. now you're overcompensating

because what i just told you is a simple, basic truth.

[whathehell]

120. Sure....Anyone with eight posts hidden in 90 days can surely read minds

and play well with others.

[whathehell]

75. Um, no, I don't think so.

Maybe in your area, not mine, and yes I HAVE experience two home invasions in my lifetime,

though neither were armed and, as might be clear, neither killed, or

hurt me in any way...It's why I lock my doors and have a home security alarm.

Other than that, I really don't worry about it, as I well would have were I

living in Watertown or Boston when this happened.

[datasuspect]

79. magic puppy delusion land

unicorns fart rainbows from their butts there.

[whathehell]

95. Oh, so that's where you live!

Enjoy it

[datasuspect]

100. yeah, i know

that's what you are, what am I?

[whathehell]

103. Lame, bro, very lame.

[datasuspect]

111. cool post bro

dont tase me bro!

[whathehell]

114. I'll leave you to the "data".

Maybe you'll do a better job of connecting there.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

160. Truth.

[mzmolly]

18. Is there a kinder, gentler way to search for a terrorist on the loose?

If I were a resident in the area, I'd be glad to see a thorough search.

[reformist2]

23. Well good for you. I hope you would respect your neighbor's right to keep the door shut.

[mzmolly]

27. Convenient for terrorists to say "don't allow a search, or else" in your scenario,

don't you think?

Though I doubt anyone denied police entry. Do you know of anyone who refused?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

202. #54.

[mzmolly]

206. #205

[gcomeau]

46. You mean respect their right...

...to have the cops turn around at the front door and abandon them while a terrorist stands out of sight with a gun pointed at them or a member of their family to threaten them into refusing permission for entry?

Think. That. Through.

There is a reason there is a public safety exception under exigent circumstances and hot pursuits of dangerous fugitives for the requirement for search warrants.

[whathehell]

33. Indeed

One just has to remember that for many here, when it comes to the US,

every Silver Lining has a Cloud. This has to be one of the LAMEST

attempts at scraping that barrel bottom I've seen in awhile.

[mzmolly]

43. Agreed.

Good grief! It sounds like Free Republic here at times.

[whathehell]

238. In terms of paranoia

or a dearth of intelligence?

At times it seems like both.

[mzmolly]

259. I agree with your last

statement.

[whathehell]

261. Thanks.

It does boggle the mind, at times.

[mzmolly]

262. Agreed,

again.

[distantearlywarning]

20. Ridiculous.

This is one of those days when I wish the Unrec feature was still around.

[nobodyspecial]

47. Must be board or looking for attention.

[Bobbie Jo]

192. +1000

Alex Jones called, he wants his back.

[ScreamingMeemie]

22. Actually... this past week I saw a small town in Texas completely destroyed.

[Newest Reality]

24. Thank you!

It is good to read some critique that points to critical issues many will overlook in light of the consequences of a traumatic situation.

It would be useful for more of us to pull-back and notice the way things play out and even compare and contrast the emergent response to past situations.

As you were noting, the terminology used to sequester the general population is worthy of our investigation. People may be willing to accept the terminology, but it is good to know that it was used in a way that, in my opinion, was more akin to "we use phrases as we choose and define or expand their meaning as we choose to".

Lines can be crossed without some sort of vigilance and careful consideration of what is happening as, historically, a crises usually creates a situation that allows overstepping, ignoring, and deprecating of human rights. Once that is accepted, then it easily becomes accepted as "normal" and can be used as a stepping stone to another breach.

So, we do have the issue of shelter-in-place, which could apply to chemical and biological disasters or, if you want to stretch it, a natural catastrophe. Does the pursuit of suspects, (regardless of their original crime, which is after-the-fact) allow for suspension of rights legally for a community at large and isn't that what the declaration of Martial Law is meant for, essentially?

It would be nice to see civil rights legal experts approach and discuss this kind of activity to assure its legality and cite the underlying legal justifications for it. Just so we, as a people, know where we are with it.

It seems to me that people were "advised/asked to stay in their homes" or, "not go outside" in the past. Why was "shelter-in-place" used? Is it official?

Again, thanks for your views on this and I would like to let you know that I support any critical views, (as opposed to emotional acceptance and popular opinion) on the subject. That's what makes a people and a country really safe and secure in the end.

[CrispyQ]

239. This: "we use phrases as we choose and define or expand their meaning as we choose to".

A thoughtful post. Written so much better than my attempt, elsewhere, in this thread. Thank you.

They have no credibility anymore. Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, Affordable Care Act. And by 'they' I include TPTB, the 1%, the ones who own our government officials.


Five Questions in Wake of Boston Bombings

http://progressive.org/5-questions-wake-of-boston-bombings

He asks good questions & makes valid points. I'm surprised that people aren't even open to a discussion on this, especially on DU.

[Newest Reality]

244. Thanks for the link and response.

One of the reasons I come here to DU is to take the pulse of this demographic concerning the many issues we face.

It is not just about what we agree or disagree on that matters to me. As you were noting, the degree of openness to divergent opinions and questions is of concern. The subjects that become almost automatically taboo could be justified as a way to keep focus and prevent extremism, but they can also be seen as a form of compliance with the Status Quo and a devotion to mainstream dominance.

DU is a great site, and has been for over a decade. It can be a litmus test for many issues and a general reflection of the impact of the hierarchical paradigm and its concerted and elaborate methods to manufacture consent, shape opinion, and promote its agendas in a professional and systematic way.

One can speak specifically or generally on this, yet it is obvious that many people, in the general sense, "won't know what hit them" when they are dealing with the methodology of a Neo-liberal hierarchy that is heavily invested in the profits of manipulation.

Thanks again! Keep on!

[Cleita]

25. I really can't blame the rank and file policeman or other government employee for this.

They are working class and union members who have to do what they are instructed to do by those who supervise them. Save your rage for the elected Republican and some Democratic "public servants" from the mayors on up to the State Houses and even further up the ladder to the Department of Justice for those decisions that are being made that are taking away our civil liberties.

I will differ with you about Ruby Ridge. I was living in that county for five years starting shortly after Ruby Ridge happened. I got to know many of the locals who were there or involved. They told tales of many of their rights trampled on by the feds even though they had nothing to do with the perps. The local coffee shop that served the law enforcement minions coffee and sandwiches got stiffed. I guess the FBI ran up a tab and then didn't pay the bill. And these are only some of the abuses that happened. But still I don't blame the rank and file, but those higher up the ladder who were calling the shots.

[MineralMan]

26. "We saw houses raided" Uh, no, we didn't.

We saw a search for a dangerous fugitive. No houses were "raided." People were asked. Some said, "OK." I haven't heard of a single case of a home being entered without permission.

Martial Law was not in place. People were asked to stay indoors. That almost always happens when there is a dangerous fugitive at large. In this case, a wider area was asked to do that. Martial law is a different thing, but you know that.

The suspect's Miranda rights are not being denied. If he could communicate, they'd ask him about other bombs and other dangers. Then, they'll read him his Miranda rights. But, he cannot talk right now, so it's a moot question.

As usual, you are stretching reality to make some point. You have not made that point. You are incorrect with regard to the facts.

[mzmolly]

28. Thanks for the thoughtful

response.

[emulatorloo]

31. Don't let the facts get in the way of a hyperbolic rant.

[reformist2]

56. I saw a house raided on youtube. The residents really had no choice.

[MineralMan]

59. Link?

Are you sure they had no choice? I doubt that very much, but I'll watch the video, if you link to it.

[reformist2]

64. Oh please. Most people don't think clearly with guns pointed all over. Anyway, the video:

[Mojorabbit]

81. Well that was no friendly may we come in and look around.

I had police over here one night after a short circuit had my phone self dialing 911 and they asked if they
could come in and look around. It was very calm. Way different than this. I understand adrenaline is flowing
but this would freak me out. My dogs would be crazy barking and I am afraid at what would have happened if my 104 lb shepherd had been at the door barking.

[datasuspect]

87. they shut up after you posted the video

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

that's what you call a felony suspect search (raid).

[MineralMan]

187. It?

No. I had something else I had to do. None of the people in that house were detained or arrested. Pretty standard operation.

I am not an It.

[datasuspect]

188. i don't know your gender

plus, it was a typo

[MineralMan]

191. Right. MineralMan is confusing.

Somehow, I doubt that. It was lame and insulting and, I think, deliberate.

[sylvi]

193. Yep, four cops show up on your front porch

Yep, four cops show up on your front porch, dressed out in SWAT gear, automatic weapons at the ready, banging on your front door, another four of the same in your front yard. Nothing coercive about that. Nosiree.

I'm sure the cop asked, "Sir, do you mind if we come in and look around?" right before he ordered him out of the house with his hands up.

[alphafemale]

232. Looks like a drug bust to me. That is an awful lot of adult males for one household

Or is it truly what it claims to be just because it claims to be on the Internet?

[MineralMan]

254. I saw several videos. In this one, everyone who came out of the

house just went to the sidewalk, were briefly stopped, and then went on their way.

Since we don't know the exact circumstances at that house, it could easily have been that someone called 911 and reported "a man running into the house." That would probably cause that style of approach to the house. Nobody who came out was detained, arrested, or any such thing.

And a lot of people came out of that house. It could have been the person shooting the video who called and said that they saw someone run into the house. I have no idea, but nobody was arrested or detained. They left the house.

[mokawanis]

63. I wonder what the cops would do in that situation

if a citizen refused to allow them in? I'd like to know if there were instances in Watertown where people said "no, you can't search my home without a warrant or court order."

[sabrina 1]

247. Um, yes, we did see them raid homes. Utube is often used now by citizens to record events that might

later be denied. Obviously you were not following the events online, which gave blow by blow accounts of most of what was happening, by citizens with their own cameras.

Thankfully citizens are recording the activities of the civilian police who sometimes forget who pays their salaries, especially in minority areas. OWS put utube to excellent use and by being prepared to produce evidence should the police ever think of lying, and we just know that would never happen, have won every case in court so far by being able to prove the cops lied about those arrests. You wonder why they lie on the stand especially when they know so many people were recording those events.

Same thing happened here so there really won't be much doubt about the facts for those who care about them.

[MineralMan]

255. See my #254.

That is all.

[madinmaryland]

34. "if you're not a terrorist, why should you care". That pretty much sums up our society

since 9/11. Sad to see it happen.

[morningfog]

35. I have yet to hear of one resident in Watertown who is facing any charges

as a result of a home search. Without charges and evidence from the search sought to be introduced at trial, there is nothing to suppress, and not constitutional violation. Without damage or injury, there is likewise no cause of action against the police.

Nor have I heard of a single person facing charges for not adhering to the shelter in. In fact, I went for a walk during it. I was not in Watertown, but in Boston. I saw many of my neighbors out and about, too. I am still bothered by the scale and the scope of the police action.

The public safety exception expansion troubles me. But, it is really academic at this point. No questioning has taken place. Charges are to be filed shortly, and attorney will soon be appointed.

[cwydro]

37. What is that Ben Franklin quote?

Those who will sacrifice freedom for security will have neither. Something like that (sorry to lazy to google), but that's the gist.

[MADem]

134. Of course, Ben Franklin never had to deal with some asshole putting a pressure cooker bomb at his

child's feet and then tip-toeing away. Ben Franklin never flew in a plane that landed on the top floors of one of the twin towers.

Ben Franklin changed his mind alot, too. Once upon a time, he wanted the US to remain a colony. He had visions of the Penn family getting the bounce, and people like him replacing them, under the same system of rule by royal.

Quoting BF like he's an oracle doesn't fly. He was undoubtedly a genius, but he also made PLENTY of mistakes in his lifetime. It's like playing the "strict constructionist" card when it comes to the Constitution.

We need to cut the cloth according to the measure. Sometimes, it makes sense to cooperate.

I see a video that shows police doing a brusque house search. I've seen other searches that were much more "Officer Friendly" and calm and courteous, that took place on the same day.

What we don't know is if some smartass called the cops and said they thought they saw "that guy" in the window, hiding out in that green house, because said smartass didn't like the loud parties they gave, or because they smoked weed in the backyard and it drifted over to their kid's swingset, or something.

I can't characterize that video as bad without knowing what the full deal was.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

164. Actually, I think that is now a Dick Cheney quote.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. One of the arguments gun nuts use is "You can't depend on the police"...

Then when the police show they can be depended on they scream "Police State!"

[Mojorabbit]

84. The police themselves say that. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

96. According to the gun nuts.

[Mojorabbit]

99. Here you go and for the record I am not a gun "nut"

though we do have guns in our household.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.
snip

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[Spitfire of ATJ]

107. Show me a big city police chief saying people should arm themselves because the cops are useless.

[Mojorabbit]

189. I only gave you a reference that did not come from an average joe

or gun nut but from a courtroom. I am doubting you will hear that from the lips of any police officer. I am not giving an opinion one way or another on gun control. It is not at the top of my list of things to worry about today. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend. It is raining cats and dogs here.
Peace, Mojo

[Spitfire of ATJ]

196. Like a "bought judge" is unheard of.

[gcomeau]

41. Nothing changed. No civil liberties were tossed.

Get your hysterical tantrum throwing under control. Law enforcement handled the situation just about perfectly. The shelter in place order was voluntary and violated nobody's rights. The searches were 100% legal under exigent circumstances/hot pursuit rules. The residents of the neighborhoods actually searched were in the streets cheering those law enforcement personnel at the conclusion of the manhunt.

We have enough real civil liberties issues with you making imaginary ones up and obscuring the issue.

[agent46]

45. The Unbearable Lightness of Being

The Unbearable Lightness of Being ~Milan Kundera

[nobodyspecial]

48. When even Manny Goldstein and WillyT

post that they understood the actions and didn't have a problem with it, you know you are out of touch.

But, maybe you are running for the leftiest left of DU.

BTW, you never did answer my question. What would be your strategy for capturing the terrorists and protecting the public? Still waiting...

[smackd]

49. bullshit (nm)

[cliffordu]

51. You don't live in Boston, do ya?

[FailureToCommunicate]

108. +1

[galileoreloaded]

53. its just a reversion to the mean.

the 20's through the late 90's in america was merely an experiment.

what we are seeing is a slow slide back into the social mean of might makes right. civilization has been built, excesses are plenty, and those rules that got us here are being abandoned.

it's just a much harsher version of a libertarian utopia brought to you by people who know better.

just sit back and watch it poolside

[agent46]

55. The long view is rarely popular

May be on to something here.

[datasuspect]

58. i'm gonna get my kicks in

while the whole shithouse blows up.

YEEE HAAAA

[avebury]

54. Does this give you warm and fuzzy feelings:

Apparently, the house by house search might not have been totally voluntary.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

166. (1) No. (2) It wasn't. (3) If the police had probable cause to assault the house in force (and

to treat the occupants like criminals), why don't any of the defenders of such action post information showing how the police had probable cause.

(4) In the absence of any knowledge that the police had probable cause, it's amazing that anyone would support this.

(5) The police practiced and prepared for this type of house assault. They will conduct additional such raids in the future.

(6) Whenever the police overstep their bounds in the future, there will always be some DUers who will defend their actions.

[mzmolly]

205. How do you know it wasn't voluntary?

Or that this video is related to the terror attack in Boston?

[Rex]

57. I don't know why you pretend Boston was under martial law.

People were walking and driving outside that day, just not very many. I saw pictures of people outside, why were they outside if it was martial law - quick answer because it WAS NOT.

[MADem]

138. But hey....doesn't it sound...DRAMATIC?

Never mind that the people who were most affected by this situation came out in the streets and actually CHEERED the police as they drove by, after the little shit was taken in.

So, there's video...and there's video:

I think the police of greater Boston fulfilled the "To Protect And Serve" role pretty well.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

167. If the "police of greater Boston fulfilled the "To Protect And Serve" role pretty well," maybe some

were cheering because it was a rare event.

[MADem]

211. Boston's a blue city, and not to put too fine a point on it, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

lit off this 'grand experiment' known as the USA. We know the difference between getting the protection we pay for and "overreach." Those two little shits killed and maimed people at a traditional sporting event that is supposed to be "fun for all ages." The community agreed that we wanted them caught.

I'm with Big Papi on this one:

[AnotherMcIntosh]

224. Of course the community wanted them caught. Why shouldn't they have wanted that?

When this country was formed, the community of Boston agreed that the government should respect freedom of speech. That community supported the adoption of the First Amendment.

When the Boston police were hired, the community of Boston agreed that the police should follow the Constitution and not use unnecessary and excessive violence to suppress speech which some of the 1% don't want said.



When the Boston police were hired, the community of Boston agreed that the police should be honest rather than corrupt. Yet, conducting a Google search will uncover multiple incidents of such corruption.

[MADem]

225. You come to Watertown and mouth off like that.

I think the residents of that fair community will give you the Big Papi for your "concern."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

227. You're a Watertown or Mass resident and you say something as silly and inane as that?

You think that you have imaginary bullies at you beck and call? Ones that will actually bully people into being silent? Here's a clue: they don't actually exist.

If you don't like what I've said, put your fingers in your ears. You're certainly not going to do anything other than that.

[MADem]

228. You've got the market on "silly and inane" cornered. I don't have to "bully" you--you're a

Keyboard Commando, an Internet Tough Guy, telling everyone how they should feel, what they should think...like you know it all. Smartest guy in the room, you! But you wouldn't dare show your face in Beantown and talk like that. It's so easy to be a bigmouth behind a screen.

And it's quite plain that you know absolutely nothing about this matter. You've sorely misjudged the mood of the hometown crowd.

So take Big Papi's advice--or don't. Your comments mean nothing. Your words are just stupid little pixels on a screen...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

241. You " 'don't' have to bully"? Actually, you can try but nobody bullies me. Not you. Not anyone.

Your threat at #225 doesn't impress me at all:

You come to Watertown and mouth off like that.

I think the residents of that fair community will give you the Big Papi for your "concern."

And your latest dare and threat is equally silly:

But you wouldn't dare show your face in Beantown and talk like that.

Although you've sometimes posted comments with which I've agreed, I never agree with lock-step thinking. A difference between you and me is that I believe in free speech and the rule of law. I don't favor the mob mentality. I certainly don't favor anyone who demands lock-step thinking in lieu of democratically-minded thinking while making threats and insults.

Your threats for physical violence from persons in Watertown and Beantown if I don't agree with your thinking, or if I don't refrain from expressing thoughts contrary to yours, is silly and inane.

You don't want to hear the words "silly and inane?" Then stop making such threats. You are wasting you time with me. Go and insult others.

[MADem]

257. That was a suggestion, not a threat.

Of course, you're an internet tough guy--you can only handle pixel flinging. I am suggesting you go to Watertown and mouth off like you are doing here, and see where it gets you.

If you choose to see that as a "threat" then clearly you are acknowledging that your comments are way the fuck out of line.

So thank you so much for proving my case.

Now, I will observe a moment of silence for the dead.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

263. What is wrong with you?

Where did you get your false statement

"you're an internet tough guy"

Where did you get insult

"you can only handle pixel flinging"?

And why would you say something nutty like:

"I am suggesting you go to Watertown and mouth off like you are doing here, and see where it gets you."

Have I threatened you in any way, shape, or form?

How is it that you seem to couch your threats such as

"That was a suggestion, not a threat"

while continuing to say,

"I am suggesting you go to Watertown and mouth off like you are doing here, and see where it gets you."

What's wrong with you? Are you nuts?

[MADem]

264. By your behavior I shall know you--and your behavior in this

thread has been absolutely lousy. Rude, tone-deaf to the situation on the ground in Greater Boston, and clueless as to the attitudes of the people impacted.

And the "Are you nuts?" is the icing on the cake.

You are looking for drama--keep looking. No one can "threaten" me on the internet--I don't play that silly game. Once again, I dare you to talk to real people, in real life, in person, in the Greater Boston community, the way you are speaking to me in this thread, and see just what kind of reception you get. Don't hold your breath looking for confetti and cheerleaders.

If you consider that "threatening" then obviously you have a feeling that your comments won't go over very well.

Here's a clue for ya--if you don't want to feel "threatened" then don't make rude, crude and nasty comments to which normal people might object, strenuously or otherwise.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

267. Because I think what you say is unrelated to the facts and you're nuts, I'm putting you on ignore.

Anyone can look at the actual posts and see that what you claim is not supported by the facts.

At post #37, someone asked, "What is that Ben Franklin quote?" and followed with "Those who will sacrifice freedom for security will have neither. Something like that (sorry to lazy to google), but that's the gist."

At #134, you responded as though you were personally offended by the reference to Benjamin Franklin, and you sought to squelch others that might refer to Benajamin Franklin or approve of Benajamin Franklin's logic.

Of course, Ben Franklin never had to deal with some asshole putting a pressure cooker bomb at his child's feet and then tip-toeing away. Ben Franklin never flew in a plane that landed on the top floors of one of the twin towers.

Ben Franklin changed his mind alot, too. Once upon a time, he wanted the US to remain a colony. He had visions of the Penn family getting the bounce, and people like him replacing them, under the same system of rule by royal.

Quoting BF like he's an oracle doesn't fly. He was undoubtedly a genius, but he also made PLENTY of mistakes in his lifetime. It's like playing the "strict constructionist" card when it comes to the Constitution.

At #164, I responed in support of the poster and the Ben Franklin observation (which is respected by a great many liberals and progressives), and in dig towards Dick Cheney who has been a major player in reducing liberties in the country, by writing, "Actually, I think that is now a Dick Cheney quote." My response in support of Benjamin Franklin and those who quote him apparently upset you.

Then, at #211, you let it be known that you are a special fan of an apparent Red Sox player named Big Papi. After saying, "I'm with Big Papi on this one" you posted a video. You also said, "The community agreed that we wanted them caught."

At #224, I asked and said:

Of course the community wanted them caught. Why shouldn't they have wanted that?
When this country was formed, the community of Boston agreed that the government should respect freedom of speech. That community supported the adoption of the First Amendment.

When the Boston police were hired, the community of Boston agreed that the police should follow the Constitution and not use unnecessary and excessive violence to suppress speech which some of the 1% don't want said.

When the Boston police were hired, the community of Boston agreed that the police should be honest rather than corrupt. Yet, conducting a Google search will uncover multiple incidents of such corruption.

I see nothing wrong with that post. Yet you apprently did. Without you having authority from "Big Papi" or anyone else from Boston or Watertown, you posted at #225,

"You come to Watertown and mouth off like that.
"I think the residents of that fair community will give you the Big Papi for your concern."

This is a discussion forum. For you to imply that you can make up rules for when other people should be silent, so that they won't offend your undescribed special sensibilities, is nuts. Even nuttier, at #228 in the string, you said without any relationship to what had been posted,

"you're a Keyboard Commando, an Internet Tough Guy, telling everyone how they should feel, what they should think ... like you know it all. Smartest guy in the room, you! But you wouldn't dare show your face in Beantown and talk like that. It's so easy to be a bigmouth behind a screen."

Somebody, you say, is "a Keyboard Commando, an Internet Tough Guy, telling everyone how they should feel, what they should think ... like you know it all." That's not related to anything that is said. But look in the mirror. It appears to describe you.

[MADem]

268. Hurrah! Don't go away mad...! Just go away, and all that. nt

[Rex]

172. I think this is the first time I've ever seen people mad

at the police for doing an OUTSTANDING JOB!!!!! And this is coming from someone that doesn't believe the official story about the JFK assassination! I mean, everyone has their own CT they believe in - but to claim Boston was under martial law is going the same place Alex Jones and Glenn Beck go...to crazyville without a boarding pass!

[MADem]

207. +1,000 nt

[egduj]

61. I expect LE to act like this in most every major city under similar circumstances...

What surprised me is how the citizens of Boston just rolled over and accepted it. Actually being happy about it.

[jehop61]

62. The breathe of the lock down was staggering

Boston is a large city. Watertown is on it's nw side. Why shut down ALL mass transit in a city of a million people for one man, wounded and on foot? Who is going to compensate all those people who can't afford a day off who live 30 miles from the trouble? It was way too easy to get people to comply with "orders"

[alarimer]

65. Ironically they didn't find him until the order was lifted

And some guy finally went outside. Imagine how much faster it might have been with more eyes looking.

And, they used the magic word "terrorism" to make the extreme measures all okay.

[reformist2]

66. Yep. With all their home invasions, the police didn't even find him! A civilian did.

[yewberry]

129. A civilian who was at home keeping his eyes open why...? nt

[treestar]

70. That is ironic

The guy is so lucky to be alive. He went in and called 911. What a police state.

[woo me with science]

142. Yes, that magic word,

with its magical, slippery meaning that shifts so easily with the situation. Surely only a real terrorist could ever be considered a person of interest. I believe the criteria are at least as stringent as for after-the-fact labeling of any young male as a "military combatant" after he has been slaughtered by a drone...


Surely a person would have to do something EGREGIOUS and TERRORISTIC before the government would EVER consider him worthy of any sort of scrutiny along those lines...




The NSA is building a massive data center in Utah to read every email you'll ever send.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002656593

Ridiculous FBI list: You might be a domestic terrorist if...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1790765

Doctors asked to identify potential terrorists under government plans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1261120&mesg_id=1261120

Homeland Security Kept Tabs on Occupy Wall Street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002466099

Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002257966

Top US counterterrorism official: drone critics are Al Qaeda enablers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002279862

"Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/

etc., etc., etc...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

168. For the TSA to consider a person to be a possible criminal and terrorist based upon complaining, is

it necessary for a complaining person to go to an airport to do so?

[mzmolly]

67. Adding, you would have preferred an endless barrage of "red alerts" followed by attacking

Chechnya?

Terrorists on the run, would have been of more use to those wishing to suppress civil liberties, than capturing and killing them quickly, was.

[renegade000]

109. seriously...

though I'm pretty sure in that case they'll be claiming "LIHOP!"

"why didn't they search HARDER if they were REALLY concerned!"

[mzmolly]

115. LOL.

Yep.

[treestar]

69. They were looking for a very dangerous person they knew was out there

They knew he was in the area! Who wanted the "freedom" to be out on the streets and run into him. Or be the occupier house he was hiding in?

Your post is just ludicrous.

The public safety exemption was already in place and used in other cases. It is valid under our case law, out of our courts. If misapplied, the defendant can challenge it.

Ludicrous.

[galileoreloaded]

73. you have the perfect attitude for 2013

your government thanks you!

[xtraxritical]

72. Yeah, well in the "good old days" youngsters were not buying machine guns

and shooting babies, they were not building bombs and there was no al Queda (sic). We would protest by sit-ins and shut down universities and government offices, we expected to get billy clubbed and hauled to jail. We were influenced by Martin L. King and Gandhi. Peace and love were cool, not violence. I miss those days but I want to be protected from violent armed fanatics. I think we all have to adapt and give a little.

[whatchamacallit]

78. Americans are lazy authoritarians

You know we're in trouble when DU's supposedly rational liberals start bleating like sheep.

[malaise]

80. I was just reminding hubby that McVeigh was simply tried and convicted

in a civilian court. There was no problem over his rights - and look how many people he slaughtered.

All these gun goons are tried in civilian court.
Sadly more and more people don't get the right to a jury trial with all this plea shit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022708354
My thread from Friday morning.

[geckosfeet]

83. You must be joking. Everything that happened in Boston was justified in my mind.

The suspect was not read his rights because he was and still is not able to communicate.

I don't doubt that you fear the encroaching police state, but find a real example. Using the marathon bombing just weakens your case.

[zeemike]

85. What you said MadHound.

I could add nothing to it.

[Live and Learn]

90. Yes, I find our response to these tragedies

far scarier than the actual episodes.

[baldguy]

92. If your house in on fire, are the firefighters breaking down your door trespassing?

No, they are not.

[woo me with science]

97. Oh, the propaganda brigade will not like this thread.

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Any thread that is this explicit about the ongoing, relentless trashing of our civil rights and protections even under Democrats will always elicit relentless denial and cheerleading for the actions taken, no matter how outrageous and fundamentally undemocratic they are.

The authoritarians are not even pretending anymore. Our party is hijacked. Our democracy is hijacked.

We are in deep, deep serious shit, and we will be fed all kinds of garbage on message boards like this, to reassure us that everything's just fine.

We don't have a Constitution anymore. They own us.

Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like: a serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. And let's not forget Tim Geithner.
Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
New policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns,
New policies of awarding medals for remote drone attacks,
Appointment of private prison executives to head the US Marshal's office
Massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons under US Marshall's office
Billions for nuclear bombs in Europe
Warrantless search and seizure, and suspension of Miranda rights.

[SpartanDem]

122. What civil rights were violated?

[woo me with science]

124. That was so cute. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

169. Well said. Best post on this thread.

[jsr]

179. Looks like a great list of accomplishments

to put on the performance evaluation form for corporate headquarters.

A heck of a job.

[just1voice]

200. They sure don't like it, they're out in force insulting, abusing and hating the truth

A poster in this thread mentioned the abusive ones being paid and I'm beginning to think that's possible. There's no way any thinking and rational humans could consistently attack every single person who mentions the truth, every single time.

Posts like this one are being purposely targeted without any attempt at all to accept, comprehend or discuss the actual posts. They are indeed being targeted by propagandists.

The OP brings up a topic that's obvious and pervasive, police abusing their powers.

[Mojorabbit]

219. +100 nt

[limpyhobbler]

98. I'm ok with the curfew but am concerned about involuntary home searches.

Shelter in place is similar to a weather emergency, people are asked not to go out.

But involuntary home searches during emergencies strikes me as the exact thing the 4th amendment was written to prevent.

By itself I'm not sure it's a problem but as part of an overall trend of reduced civil liberties, it's a thing. One more nail in the coffin.

[randome]

105. I'm pretty sure the 4th Amendment had more to do with political persecutions...

...than with cops trying to stop an armed and dangerous fugitive.

[limpyhobbler]

127. I thought it was people wanted to be able to hide things from the government.

[SpartanDem]

150. It's always been legal

it's call exigent circumstance, if the police are actively chasing a suspect, they can search without a warrant. If police are chasing robber through your neighborhood they can do home searches. But let's say the robber makes a clean escape from the scene and the police later get a tip that they might be in one of the houses of your neighborhood they must have probable cause and get a warrant to search a home as they are not in "hot pursuit".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

[limpyhobbler]

159. Is it used very often?

[SpartanDem]

190. I would say it is rare for door to door

a friend has the police chase a bank robber into their neighborhood, they looked in people's backyards, checked trash cans and they locked down a nearby elementary school but they didn't search homes. So it's not like they search homes everytime they're looking for someone

[Milliesmom]

121. Benjamin Franklin

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[woo me with science]

126. Can't be posted often enough.

Thank you.

[MADem]

213. Benjamin Franklin thought we should stay a colony of England for the longest time, too.

Ben Franklin changed his mind, often, as I noted elsewhere.

Ben Franklin didn't see his kid murdered by a "pressure cooker bomb." Ben Franklin could not conceive of a machine gun, never mind a nuclear weapon.

Ben Franklin never flew on a plane that a hijacker plowed into a tower in NYC.

I have a feeling Ben would have a different attitude if he had awareness of world wars, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism on a global scale, etc.

Fat Tony Scalia is in favor of that "strict constructionist" stuff. If they said anything "way back when" it has validity now, regardless. Kind of like those fools who read the Bible and take it word-for-word, even though they'd never burn a bull on the altar to make a pleasing smell for the Lord. Should we blindly take the counsel of a guy who was willing to deal with staying under the King so long as he got a good appointment out of it, and who never lived in a world with electricity, mass transit, telephones and computers?

One thing the Founding Fathers understood--we should cut the cloth according to the measure. That's what the good people of Greater Boston did, and unless you're one of us, your opinion is noted.

[DeSwiss]

137. For all the Police State Worshippers out there. Remember this?

[center]











[/center]

The cops and firemen DID. THEIR. JOBS. This is what they signed up for in this fucked-up society we've made. They signed up for it and they did it. They are NOT HEROES FOR DOING THEIR FUCKING JOBS! And they couldn't even do their jobs correctly because they're incapable of doing their jobs without violating someone's rights. It's how authoritarians are made.

Wake The Fuck Up!

K&R

[AnotherMcIntosh]

170. x2

[Union Scribe]

218. Are you incapable of both praise and criticism?

Maybe that's what is confusing so many of you. Many of us are able to praise a good job and condemn a bad one.

[DeSwiss]

229. I am.....

...indeed capable of both praise and criticism (however, I don't do requests). Secondly, I'm not confused, just selective upon whom I bestow said praise, or whether or not to do so at all. And since peer pressure's never worked worth a damn on me either, thus as Bartleby informs us, "I prefer not to.''

Might I ask, are you incapable of respecting someone's right to form their own opinions based upon their own acquisition of the facts and their own values and experiences? Do you believe that your perspective is more valid than anyone else's? If so, more's the pity.

My concerns lie more so in the fact that we've created such a messed-up society which requires we hire these ''professional gunmen'' in any instance. But with our hanging-on to our beloved barbarity and all, what are you gonna do, eh? To say that the police are a necessary evil seems true enough. But if so, it is an evil nonetheless. An evil with a license to kill.

Finally, I'm happy for ''the many'' of you who have been able to reconcile the police's hypocrisy in your own mind. That must be comforting whenever another police brutality report sneaks its way onto the airwaves. And which seems to be happening quite often these days. I'm sure that it'll serve you well when that day comes that they choose to suspend privacy rights altogether (for efficiency's sake and to cut the deficit, of course) and all requirement to obtain a warrant in order to search a citizen's house when looking for ''terrarists and other bad guys.''

- Well, done......

[WinkyDink]

139. BRAVO. But "civil liberties be returned"? Not likely, what with those "USA! USA!" cheers (p.i.).

The story of "can't talk so can't answer questions" doesn't pass the Helen Keller test.

[forestpath]

140. This is exactly how I feel. Our civil liberties have been so eroded since 9/11 and

Obama's government picked up where Bush's left off.

Since I don't believe we can trust the government to protect our civil liberties anymore, any time they are suspended in any way, for any reason, my gut reaction is uneasiness and distrust. There is no applauding the the Boston police without that in the back of my mind.

[JoePhilly]

141. Video of people protesting the behavior of the Boston Police ...

[ellisonz]

178. They look so oppressed!

[TeamPooka]

143. Keep the citizenry scared and they will be obedient.

[whathehell]

183. Sure, these guys were actually just part of a "plan" by the PTB

to keep us all "scared" and "obedient".

For a Day.

[TeamPooka]

186. You are putting words in my mouth I did not claim or say Mr. Staw Man....

The OP is discussing the history of our civil liberties and I am referring to the general history of post WWII America, but especially since 9/11.
We, as citizens, have been conditioned to be afraid, very afraid.
Fear the Soviet Union, there is a nation that wants to nuke us all!
Fear Vietnam, one domino goes and we all go!
Fear Iran, they took over our Embassy and kicked out our puppet dictator.
North Korea has nukes!
Osama Bin Laden wants to destroy our way of life!

Except none of these dangers can destroy our way of life unless we let them or do it ourselves.
I'm not talking about a conspiracy yesterday, I'm talking about how political leaders ruled for decades and centuries.

We just do it better here than anywhere else.

[whathehell]

201. I'm sorry if I did that, it wasn't intentional, nonetheless, I'm not convinced that

the "scared American" = "average American", and I say that as someone who remembers

the assassination deaths of both Kennedys, as well as that of Martin Luther King. I say it as one

who remembers ducking under elementary school desks for air raid drills during the cold war years.

I not only "remember" Vietnam, I lost a friend to it, and despite all of that, neither my life

nor anyone else I know from that era has been "fearful", in fact, like many Boomers,

it's been quite the adventurous opposite, so I'm afraid that I'm just not "getting"

this characterization of the "fearful American". I definitely do NOT think the actions

of the Boston Police are illustrative of it, nor in any way in keeping with "losing our liberties".

Like most who actually experienced this incident, I view it as the sensible thing to do

under the circumstances, and if someone knows of a better way to achieve the outcome they did,

I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it.

As another poster noted, neither the OP nor any of those agreeing with him are from Boston.

Like her and a number of others here, I think his attempt to prove a "larger" point on it's basis is a flat failure.

[Rilgin]

144. A Question (no slant)

I was curious and have two questions as to some elements of the use of this "Miranda Exception".

1. As I understand it, Miranda is merely an exclusionary principal at trial for statements and a requirement that a suspect must be informed of his rights. In saying they are not giving him a Miranda Statement, are they saying (a) his actual rights are suspended or (b) are they merely saying they are merely not informing them of these rights and will try to use any actual statements at trial? Another formulation of this question is that the Miranda statement informs the suspect of his right to an Attorney. If, without being given notice of this right, he wakes up and asks for an Attorney to sit in on any questionning, are they saying he does not have that right at all till the emergency is over?

2. The above question seems to have a factual answer. The other question is more speculative and really consists of "why" they (whoever they is) are making an issue of Miranda in this case. Somewhat it depends on the answer to the foregoing question. If the decision makers on this Miranda issue feel that the actual rights are suspended there maybe some advantage to the prosecution. However, it feels/seems like there is a political element to it. I wonder why they think it is politically bad to say "The suspect has been arrested and given his rights" or just "The suspect has been arrested without mentioning rights or no rights versus "The suspect has been arrested" while affirmatively pointing out the Rights Issue.

Anyhow would like an answer on the first question and to hear some opinions on the second.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

173. Two predictions: (1) Some will say that "his actual rights" were "suspended."

(2) Some on this board will be fine with that.

[SpartanDem]

212. It's none of those

his rights are not suspended and they will read him his rights. Under the exception police can arrest without immediately giving Miranda warnings and question you about preventing a crime taking place in the near future. Let's say he was arrested uninjured and fully conscience, they could ask him if they're anymore bombs the area, if he was working anybody and if so are there future attacks planned and so on. So if there was another co conspirator in another city about to attack, those statements would be admissible. It's not a blanket for them to question him about anything and everything like motivation or travel history he would have to be read his rights for any further questioning. Of course, he could refuse from the start and ask for a lawyer.

In this case the suspect was very injured when arrested, so the Miranda thing is kind murky. I don't even think he was even in a condition to be questioned. So I'd be wary of making this a political thing.

[Rilgin]

221. thanks and clarifying

Thanks for the answer. From what you are saying this sees really a rather minor issue but let me see if I really understand. He still has the right to say "I want an attorney and will not talk to you" he just isn't being informed of that right and if he talks his statements are still admissible? Meanwhile he is not conscious so can not be either questioned or given his rights. This does seems kind of silly actually.

As to politicization you are right that it seems silly. When he wakes up, I can not understand why they (meaning police and prosecutors) would not want to read him his rights and try to question him. I can't see why they would not want to read him his rights at the earliest chance to avoid any court challenges. There seems to be plenty of evidence and why create an issue. The only reason I asked the question earlier is that it seems like in answer to question from the media, they are not reading the rights and claiming it as an exception rather than just saying he is unconscious. In addition, some politicians are asking the question as though it was political. I just cant see what is to be gained by police, prosecutors or politicians by not just reading him his rights if he is going to be tried by the criminal justice system.

[Summer Hathaway]

146. Well, we can all count on ONE thing that will never change

And that's your insatiable need to twist facts in order to make them fit your own BS theories.

[sheshe2]

245. +1!

[Chico Man]

147. The K-9 unit failed

How they were not able to follow a trail of blood is beyond me.

[Arkana]

148. Jesus Christ, do you HAVE an off button?

Shelter-in-place was not a law, it was a request. It made the cops' jobs easier.

All you whinypantses who have a problem with the Boston PD seem to have one thing in common: NONE OF YOU ACTUALLY LIVE IN BOSTON.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

175. That's important, if true. Please see #54.

Can you explain how the police had probable cause to enter and pull out the occupants in the manner that they did?

[cantbeserious]

151. Welcome To Revolution - The Right Wing Revolution - Enjoy Remembering Those Freedoms

eom

[sylvi]

152. If this occured in a red state

or under a Rethuglican administration, you probably wouldn't be seeing near the cheerleading you see now. People would, correctly, be more circumspect and critical of it, as you have in your OP. As it stands now, I think a lot of people are trying to preempt wingers' cries of "Look what happened on Obama's watch, nyah-nyah-nyah!" by celebrating and emphasizing how quickily it was contained, methods be damned.

Then again, I could be wrong. It could be part and parcel to a more general swing in attitudes toward a more authoritarian style of governance. We've certainly seen evidence of that in the past few months.

A couple of other random thoughts:

This is basically the same police force that beat down Veterans For Peace members and other Occupiers while forcing them out of Union Square in October of 2011. Yet here some are, lining up to sniff their badges because they performed the default act of actually doing their jobs.

I wonder if the police would have been so ardent in this balls-out approach to searching for and cornering these guys if one of their own hadn't been murdered early in the pursuit.

Yesterday I saw a thread with photos meant to praise BPD. One of the photos depicted an armored vehicle with officers around it decked out in full tactical regalia. A week ago, that same photo would have been posted to decry "the militarization of the police".

Up is down and down is up.

[reformist2]

155. This is why the founding fathers worried about political parties - people get way too attached.

They stop thinking objectively.

[forestpath]

165. +1000

[ProSense]

154. This is simply

Did we see any of this on display during the OKC bombing, Ruby Ridge, Waco? No, because such concepts were foreign to our conception of law enforcement. Yes, the Public Safety exception was in play, but in very limited form, certainly not we're seeing now, a forty eight hour free pass to grill a suspect about any and everything. Shelter in place was meant as a suggestion that one should follow in the case of bad weather or release of a hazardous material, not as a method to lockdown an entire community so that a house to house set of raids could take place. And those raids themselves are based on a radically expanded definition of the legal concept of "exigent circumstance", a concept that was originally intended to be used when a suspect is being hotly pursued, but now has been morphed into allowing the police to take their time, going door to door, for hours on end.

...naive and fairly incoherent. I mean, the text weaves the Miranda issue with the Shelter in Place issue and makes no coherent point. The OKC bombing suspect was caught within 90 minutes so there was no need for a massive, protracted manhunt. Ruby Ridge and Waco were isolated (a remote region and a compound).

Waco siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

Ruby Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Could you imagine the mayhem if those two incidents were smack in the middle of Boston?

In fact, the Boston offensive was conducted in a much better way than those two.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

176. Well said. But it does appear that a lot of people, even on this board, don't want you or anyone

else to say it.

[LanternWaste]

250. Or may simply disagree with the premise...

" it does appear that a lot of people, even on this board, don't want you or anyone else to say it..."

Or may simply disagree with the premise...

Which of course, automatically turns them into "authoritarians" (insert spooky music here). However, I do realize the melodramatic necessity of colorful adjectives in many editorials to better make an editorial appear valid, and rationalize our lack of grounded and objective analysis.




However, as we are indeed, living in a police state, I can only assume we will be rounded up within the week due to our Internet posting habits.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

256. You are wrong in saying "we are indeed, living in a police state." You are also wrong in suggesting

that posters who disagree with a premise automatically turns them into authoritarians.

[jeff47]

177. Lovely rant. Now, you might have a point if you could show the people

arrested for not complying.

So, feel free to show all the people arrested for not consenting to a search. Or for not remaining indoors. Because that's what would happen if this actually was a martial law situation.

While you're working on that, consider that having a right doesn't mean you must always exercise that right. If the police come to search your house without a warrant, you have the right to say no. You don't have to say no.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

180. Somebody still gets it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017113686

[reformist2]

185. +1000. A tour de force!

[nobodyspecial]

195. Wow, she recommends everyone to be armed

because you can't count on cops and then talks about the cops going through your medicine cabinet and looking in your underwear drawers and then posting your Internet browsing history. What exactly does she get? Do you agree that everyone should be armed? And I might have missed it, but do you have more details on the cops searching medicine cabinets and underwear drawers while looking for a terrorist?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

197. Wow, you had to deviate from the truth. Not a surprise.

[nobodyspecial]

208. What truth?

The way you have distorted the actual facts of this situation to further your perspective/narrative.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

223. What deviation from the truth? You FALSLY said "she recommends everyone to be armed"

as a start.

That's not true. At no time did she recommend everyone to be armed.

In your world you believe that there are people who actually recommend that everyone be armed? Where are these people? Who are they? Can you identify any? Any at all?

She didn't say that. You falsely claimed that she said that. She didn't.

[snooper2]

236. 1st of all, she talks funny,

Now that I got that out LOL,

"You're gonna need more than a butterknife" I guess she was talking about shovels

[AnotherMcIntosh]

246. She never said "You're gonna NEED more than a butterknife". Beginning at 0:10 she described

the known situation in which one suspected killer was killed and a second one (armed and dangerous) was running around a residential neighborhood. She then answered her own question,

"Why does anybody need a semi-automatic gun anyway?" "Oh, I don't know. When there's a guy at large in your neighborhood who may be a derranged terrorist killer that indiscriminately bombed innocent people, you're going to WANT more than a butter knife."

Not everyone wants to be able to defend themselves with a firearm. Some want others to do that for them. Some would want a police presence. However individuals react, it is literally true that those in the neighborhood probably wanted more than a butter knife.

Otherwise saying that she said "You're gonna NEED more than a butterknife" is as a false as the statement made by another poster above who falsly said, "Wow, she recommends everyone to be armed."

[Zorra]

182. Are you kidding me? The American public will NEVER demand these civil liberties be returned.

Look at how so many people who claim to be progressive totally fawn over authority and are willing to march in lockstep with the corporate state. Americans are afraid to tear themselves away from their televisions, let alone stand up for themselves.

All I personbally have to look forward to, politically, is maybe getting recognized my human rights recognized as an LGBT person before I die.

Other than that, and maybe a few other social advances, it's gonna be one long slow miserable sink into total fascist indentured servitude for a whole lot of people in this country.

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

You are here: ----> FASCISM

[sylvi]

194. The erosion continues, uninterrupted

From Naomi Wolf's Fascist America, in 10 easy steps:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

...what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions
on our freedoms.


2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

[upi402]

210. the making of "All the Prseidents Men" is on now

Yes, there used to be journalism.
Now we have journalwasm.

[DonCoquixote]

215. I can understand Miranda, but

if people who were heavily armed were chasing someone so desperate he ran over his own brother to escape, what was wrong with searching the houses? I frankly would want the cops in to make sure the bastard was not in my basement, and furthermore, If I did mind, the neighbor who would be blown up because of me being an ass would have every right to say "why didn't you check his damn yard?"

[Union Scribe]

217. +1

Miranda is definitely something to discuss. But the OP's talk of "raids" is just out-of-context nonsense. The police weren't doing those searches for fun or to find drugs or to plant bugs for the NSA, it was an emergency situation that people understood as such and cooperated.

imo the idea that this was a part of "softening us up" to tyranny is a short stone's throw from crying "false flag" and joining Glenn Beck.

[bluedigger]

220. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment!

We were all so proud as the armed militias rose up as one to reject the government oppression!

[L.A.dweller]

222. The weapon systems used by the military in the Middle East

has reared its head here in our country. One can't help but be cautious and question authority when our government passes something like the National Defense Authorization Act.

Not to mention, our natural environment is being poisoned by Fracking and the coming Keystone Pipeline.

Eisenhower warned the country about recent events in his Military Industrial Complex Speech, 1961.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

[Marrah_G]

226. I like you Madhound and we usually agree

I disagree with you and I am going to trash this thread rather then get in a argument over it.

[geek tragedy]

230. Factually false bleating.

There were no raids on innocent citizens without warrants.

There was no imposition of anything resembling martial law. Anyone from Boston will tell you you're full of shit on this.

Miranda rights merely mean that the government can't use your post-arrest statements against you.

And, bonus derp for asking if there were civil rights violations in response to Ruby Ridge and Waco, which ended with the deaths of nearly all civilians present and weren't terrorist attacks.

Bonus bonus derp for ignoring the fact that the Bomb Brothers were ACTIVELY BOMBING THE STREETS when police tried to arrest them, thus creating immediate danger to anyone in their vicinity.

Bonus bonus bonus derp for worrying about Miranda rights for those who get speeding tickets--given that NO ONE GETS MIRANDIZED FOR A SPEEDING TICKET.

What this shows is that the knee-jerk cop haters and self-styled 'anti-authoritarians' are the ones who are afraid to think for themselves and deal with the truth.

That 80+ people rec'd this drivel is a reminder of how dumb the discourse can be here.

[Wait Wut]

252. I had a rough weekend.

Your comment made it better.

I had to deal with similar crap as the OP all friggin' weekend from RWNJs and random uninformed CTs. If I didn't have to work today, I would've stayed home and cried all day...or week. So many people have just gone off the deep end on this whole thing for so many ridiculous reasons. I was shocked to read this and one other OP that I just about gave up.

Thank you.

[geek tragedy]

253. The "trash thread" feature is underused.

Fantastic sanity preservation function.

Cheers.

[Triana]

233. "originally intended to be used when a suspect is being hotly pursued"

Um. That's what this was. And I don't think police "took their time". They were busting their asses to find this guy. That's why there were going house to house. The suspect was extremely dangerous and presented a danger to the public. These men had planned more bombings. I just don't have a problem with the way police handled this situation. Their first priority was public safety. As well it should have been after what happened.

I don't think such tactics or policies will begin to be used daily by law enforcement in every circumstance or in other circumstances of lesser magnitude.

What I'm personally more concerned about is police brutalization of citizen protesters as what happened with OWS - as police inexplicably protect the corporate state that abuses them and everyone else.

In the Boston Bombing situation, police protected the public and did their jobs appropriately.

In the OWS protests, they brutalized the public on behalf of corporations and did NOT do their jobs appropriately.

[sheshe2]

237. Please come to Boston

You have no idea what you are talking about. House's raided? Oh please get a grip. How many of your friends live in Watertown? Hmmm. I have three.

but now has been morphed into allowing the police to take their time, going door to door, for hours on end.

They took their time? Really? This all happened Monday at 3pm it ended Friday.

So please come to Boston, tell us how it really happened.

it's true, of course, that this week has also shown our national flaws. In our desire for quick and easy resolutions to extraordinarily complex challenges, we saw media mistakes and innocent people wrongly blamed. And this much bigger problem: As a country, we have to accept that for all the joys our freedoms bring, there will always be those who exploit those very freedoms to do harm to others. Whether organized groups or lone wolves, sometimes terrible desire will meet awful capability. So as we strive to defend ourselves, we must also accept another harder truth: Monday is unlikely to be the last or the worst act of terrorism that America suffers.

For all our flaws, we are a great and noble people. And so, even as we remember the lost, we should continue forward with renewed faith and emboldened spirit.

This week, as on April 19, 1775, Boston again showed us that America is worth fighting for.

http://theweek.com/article/index/243029/from-boston-powerful-truths-for-america

[graham4anything]

240. So, ah, what exactly have YOU given up here?

thing I see is, 80-20.


80% of the people are quite content or more with the outcome in the Dorner case, with the outcome in this case, with OBL being smoked out after Bush said he would smoke him out and didn't for 8 years.

I see 20% or LESS not content

So to the vocal vocal vocal small minority-
please do tell-what exactly have you lost?

BTW, I don't give a spit if the cops/firemen/law enforcement whatsoever are either republican or democratic or greens or whatever.
Just like the PEOPLE OF MASS who applauded them.

I did NOT see one person booing them.

Comes a time when 80 or higher needs to be put above the 20 or less

Is any group perfect? No. But 80-20 isn't bad.
And once its 80-20, then you weed out the bad of the bad.

Don't like cops? Well, 100% of cops aren't good, 100% aren't bad.
You weed out the bad and leave the good and applaud them as they are
GREAT UNION PEOPLE. I thought everyone who is a liberal or a democratic person likes unions?

What is it, exept for cops and firemen? HUH????????????????????

get rid of the bad, keep the good.

I applaud them.

I weep for the dead in the explosion, Officer Collier in the aftermath of that. All the wounded, and what was given up by them and by those who now cannot without fear assemble in yet another place.

What rights have been taken away by this event from a civil liberties standpoint-NONE at all.
All it is are soundbytes to keep the anti-spin going.
And I won't go silent.

The silent majority needs to become more vocal and respond.

Burn it down was what the two haterperps did. Like arsonists they didn't gas what they left behind. And I do not care what was their motive. It is all the same be it the coward from Oklahoma,
be it the coward in Florida shooting an unarmed man, be it OBL, be it the KKK, be it the awipe that killed John Lennon(man of peace). It is all the same. All they offered was hate.
Sorry, I do not back that anarchy or vigilantism or whatnot that they defiantly did taking things in their own hands for thrills and kills or politics or whatever.

All are in common with that.

And I applaud the law enforcement. And yes, there are bad law enforcement.So get rid of the individual ones that are.

[L0oniX]

242. I'm expecting them to waterboard the subject once he recovers enough to endure it.

[DCBob]

248. Good grief.. what exaggerated over-the-top nonsense.

The police did their job and they did it very well. I doubt anyone in Boston feels they had their "civil liberties tossed out the window". Find another bogus issue to complain about.. this one isnt sticking.

[midnight]

260. K&R We need to return to the rule of law. End a never ending war

that appears to be happening in our backyards compliments of Lindsey Grahm... review what we are heading towards..

&feature=player_embedded

[El Fuego]

266. As a woman, I trade liberty for fucking safety every day of my life.

So much bullshit.