jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (32 posts)

Civil Liberties and the Boston Bombing

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi … 11-bargain  Left source.

    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ … -tsarnaev/  right source

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/th … ous/12563/  Whatever way you think PBS leans, it's a good article.

    People from the left and right are both calling our comatose attention to the almost gleeful way people in Boston gave up their rights.  The Police State came without a moment's hesitation by most in the city.

    During the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi Hermann Goering claimed, "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works the same way in any country."

    I am not insinuating that the bombing was a "false flag."  What I am arguing is that the government took full advantage of the attack, and people acquiesced willfully.  In Boston, liberty lost.   

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

    1. Clint Ward profile image60
      Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It was advised not to be out on the streets it wasn't decreed.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The people who were held at gunpoint while the police searched their houses were just "advised"?

        1. LauraGT profile image86
          LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think people were happy to help with the searches to ensure *their own* safety and that of their neighbors. I'm sure having their homes searched was scary for many, but knowing that someone who was out to kill innocent civilians was at large (and in my neighborhood) and possible armed with bombs could be in my basement, I would have welcomed them the searches, as I think most Watertown residents did (even though they may have been scared).

    2. LauraGT profile image86
      LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So, where was this sense of outrage over loss of civil liberties a few months ago when there was MANDATORY state of emergency in MA due to a massive snowstorm? People had to stay home or risk fine or prison time.  The result: very few deaths due to the weather.  I don't know - a snowstorm, or 3 dead and dozens wounded, a cop killed, another one wounded, and 2 guys with explosives and firearms hijacking cars and having shootouts with the police? Given the choice, I think I'd rather go out and play in the snow....

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't know that happened.  That's just as absurd.

        1. LauraGT profile image86
          LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I disagree. The ban allows city workers to clear the roads and saved dozens of lives. My understanding is that no one was fined or put in jail - some people were stopped and asked why they were on the road - if there was no good reason they were told to go home.  In the blizzard of 1978 (similar scale of storm), massive state funds had to be used rescue people who were stranded on the highway and dozens died.  I think it's a reasonable (and legal) precaution to ask people to stay home when their lives and the lives of others may be in jeopardy if they venture out. No unreasonable force was used, and it was effective.

  2. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    People like Lindsey Graham are arguing in favour of treating the suspect as an enemy combatant and holding him indefinitely. I have two problems with this:

    1. This is an American citizen accused of committing a crime on American soil. This is not a war-zone.
    2. Why should there be a distinction anyway? Every human being holds the same rights as everyone else, including a right to a fair trial.

    Violating the rights of this man and the people of Boston sets a dangerous precedent.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's just becoming worse and worse.  The "public safety exception" is going to end up expanding indefinitely.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do we lose our civil liberties when advised to evacuate in advance of a hurricane, flood, tornado, or other natural disaster?

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No.  It's a prudent warning to avoid a coming catastrophe that is easily verifiable OUTSIDE of statements by politicians and police.  There's no faith or trust involved; I can watch the weather channel and see what's coming.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Couldn't Bostonians, given today's instantaneous communication era, witness for themselves the bombings at the marathon finish line, make the accurate connection that the perpretrators could well still be in the area (they were)? I wonder if the guy who got carjacked wishes he had been home behind a locked door...

            Even with weather, there has to be a human judgment call that the threat is imminent.
            It's a common safety procedure to put schools (prime example) on lockdown if there is a threat.
            That, like weather, of course, is proactive, not reactive.
            Is there a better way that does not infringe on personal liberties?

            1. 0
              Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this
          2. LauraGT profile image86
            LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think having 2 men at large who had just bombed the marathon, were found with more explosives and firearms, and who just killed a cop is pretty good cause for caution.  I live in the lockdown area (sorry, I've mentioned that a bunch of times already on these forums!) and nobody thought twice about staying home, given the situation.  I've spoken to many people about this, and I have not heard a single person in the lockdown area who did not think it was the right thing to do (and we are not an acquiescent bunch).

            I think you have to differentiate between complete police control and what happened in Boston.  This was a not some power grab by the police.  The lockdown was a minor inconvenience to residents that may have been pivotal in stopping additional loss of life. I think that's worth it.  But, I think saving even one human life is worth some sacrifice, not a position held by many in our country.

            1. 0
              Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What would have happened to you if you decided to stroll about in the street?  You'd likely be shot or arrested.

              1. LauraGT profile image86
                LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Absolutely not!  That is PURE FANTASY.  I *did* venture out on to the streets and there were people out - gardening, playing in their yards, walking their dogs, etc. People were being asked to exercise common sense.  Within a few blocks of where they suspected the guy was, things were tighter, but with good reason.  No one was shot or arrested.  That is pure nonsense.

    2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is he a citizen? One of the two brothers applied for citizenship last summer and the application was red flagged.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think the younger one was a U.S. citizen.

  3. LeanMan profile image81
    LeanManposted 3 years ago

    So lets consider this;

    The police know that there is going to be a possible gun battle with people with firearms and WMDs (pressure cookers). So they don't tell anyone to stay indoors and out of the way...

    Mr and Mrs smith decide to go out for an evening stroll and get shot, what do they do? The sue the ass off of the police dept and everyone else for knowingly letting them get caught up in an otherwise avoidable situation.. No one takes responsibility for their own actions today if there is an opportunity to blame someone else and make money!!

    Just telling people to stay out of the way when you know people may get hurt otherwise is hardly a huge conspiracy! What does it achieve?? What big event was going on that "they" did not want witnessed? Were we invaded by aliens and they used the manhunt and shootings as a cover up?

    Or maybe they just advised people to stay inside out of the way so that they didn't get shot, carjacked, or blown up.............

    Well that's my opinion but maybe I am just too trusting......

  4. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    Everyone is assuming the authorities are completely trustworthy.  That's a highly questionable assumption, given the corruption of the police, the FBI, and the CIA.

    The "authorities" can't even get their story straight on 9/11.  And, to add on to this-

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl … k-20120515

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no … rror-plots

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opini … l&_r=0

    Radicalize people and then call them terrorists.  Then these "terrorist" attacks are used to further reduce civil liberties. 

    The FBI isn't fessing up to the truth on this, and it's damn obvious.  Social media is giving alternative voices a platform (the parents of the brothers, people with phones, friends of the bombists), so we are getting a more broad picture.  Mainstream media is also starting to come around to doubting the highly implausible scenario that the FBI "knew nothing" about the bombing.

    Our authorities have given us no reason to believe what they say.  However, even if they did, there should be a limit on state power.  The attitudes thus far scare me; they are a shrug of the soldiers to vast infringements of liberty.  This is exactly what terrorists want, and we habitually (yes HABITUALLY) fall right into what they want.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    My college,  11 miles west of the marathon finish line ( but famously along the marathon route) and 8 miles west of Watertown, cancelled classes and shut down.
    Being a private college, were they violating students' civil rights in so doing?

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No.  They weren't confining students to their houses at gun point (at least I hope they weren't!).

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No gunpoint, no.

  6. LeanMan profile image81
    LeanManposted 3 years ago

    I have to laugh at the stories that are linked to and what is being talked about..

    Lets just think about it..... If you had a neighbor who was always talking about blowing people up, belong to strange militant groups etc would you be happier if the FBI gave him a fake bomb to show what he was really like or would you like him to wait a little longer and get introduced to Asama-bin-someone who gives him the real thing?

    Where do we draw the line? If we wait until these people actually do the crime then we are too late and people die, then we complain that the FBI didn't do enough when they clearly knew what the people were like - if you find those that actually want to do it and they prove that they actually will go through with it; then lock them up - personally I would rather be safe than sorry.... To hell with their human rights, if they want to talk about blowing up my family, friends, neighbors they have no rights...

    Normal decent people do not hand around with militants and talk about doing these things!!! So what are you afraid of? The FBI are not targeting your coffee mornings or bowling nights, they are trying to find people in the groups that are trying to cause mayhem and death!!!

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Judge Colleen McMahan summed it up best:

      "The essence of what occurred here is that a government understandably zealous to protect its citizens from terrorism came upon a man both bigoted and suggestible, one who was incapable of committing an act of terrorism on his own...Only the government could have made a ‘terrorist’ out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope."


      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbi- … z2RGNd7NL7

      http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/15/m … terrorists

      Can't say I didn't provide any evidence.

  7. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment

    http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

    The judge said he would not have committed the crimes if not for the FBI, and that seems to fit this definition perfectly.  Why she still held up the conviction I don't know.

    1. LeanMan profile image81
      LeanManposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So he would not have committed the crime if it were not for the FBI....

      So what you are saying is that if someone else recognized the ease with which this guy could be turned into a terrorist then he would have been a real terrorist.... Why do we have to wait for him to kill someone!!!

      Come on.. normal decent people would not want to shoot people or set off bombs no matter what anyone told them or convinced them of!!!

      My kids know right from wrong!! Why does this guy not know and why did he not say no if he was being manipulated into doing this against his will!!!  This is just a great ploy to try to get out of jail to go and do it for real!

      If I told you to put a gun to your neighbors head because he supports the wrong political party and pull the trigger would you do it?

      I can understand this argument for kids or mentaly deficient individuals if adults convince them to do wrong; but when it comes to a grown adult who knows right from wrong there is no excuse!

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not arguing terrorists don't exist.  But there is a real question of how much the FBI has nudged these people towards terrorism.  Uttering statements about attacking the U.S. government are not equivalent to actually attacking.

        Did you read the links I've posted?  The FBI organized meetings, had extensive conversations with the "terrorists," and even provided them with the materials used (fake bombs).  It's ridiculous.

        1. LeanMan profile image81
          LeanManposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Sooner,
          Yes I read some of the links, and I am sure some of what they say is exaggerated to make things worse than they actually are. Now I can understand entrapment being a way out if you persuade someone to steal or something similar where the "victim" gets to make money to fulfill their pressing and sometimes stress inducing needs.
          However planting bombs is another matter - if you put temptation in that persons way and they actually want to buy and plant that bomb will they not do the same if an actual terrorist comes along and tries to recruit them? The people they are targeting are already predisposed towards committing these crimes and in my mind there is no excuse for them to follow through with what they have done whether they were led into it or not.
          If someone said to you that the government needs to be punished for infringing your freedoms and said to you that you can buy a bomb and make them pay would you do it? No (I hope) Most of us know that it is wrong and most of us would be on the phone to the FBI telling them that some nut is trying to persuade us into doing something terrible!!
          Not informing on someone that is plotting something that terrible is as big a crime as doing it - would you be able to sit back knowing that someone was going to plant bombs and not do something?

          I would jump up and down and shout about this if the FBI were going into poor neighborhoods and trying to recruit young impressionable and often desperate people to commit crimes to make money; but we are talking about going after people that are affiliated to radical organizations that want to cause mayhem and death - if the people go ahead they would go ahead if a real terrorist tried to help them!!

  8. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 years ago

    AG Eric Holder : "The president could use lethal force against American citizens on U.S. soil in 'an extraordinary circumstance,' one that resembles something like the catastrophic' domestic attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Pearl Harbor."

    Would it be OK with Boston to use drones for a kill strike against the 2 brothers?
    http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rman844l.jpg

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, there's that too...

      1. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, the police said that the little brother ran over his completely naked and cuffed older brother while there were at least 200 officers within a 200 foot radius. Are we to believe that after gaining custody of the older one that EVERYBODY turned their backs on the younger and completely forgot about him? 

        I don't think it would be possible to be able to jump back into the SUV and rearend anybody unless the custodial officers literally threw the older one 'under the bus' so to speak.

        http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24370866.jpg

 
working