Skip to main content

View Diary: Being Against Wars Means You're "Radicalized?" (453 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So... (12+ / 0-)

    Does one have to meet all of those points to qualify as a terrorist? I think the brothers accomplished:
    A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

    (B) appear to be intended—i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population

    (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

    Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

    by jiffypop on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:45:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't that what the police did in their Orwellian (5+ / 0-)

      doublespeak of "Shelter in Home"???

      Then going house-to-house and pulling Americans out of their homes at gunpoint?  

      Then pointing guns at neighbors whom were videotaping it?

      All in violation of the laws of the United States, ie, the Constitution with the intent i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population and (c) occurred primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

      I do believe so.

      See how this works yet?  

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:56:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  police (17+ / 0-)

        policing in the aftermath of a deadly crime

        it's their job

        see how that works?

        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

        by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:05:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Policing" now entails the shredding of the (7+ / 0-)

          constitution?

          Where was the probable cause?

          Where was the search warrant?

          Were the victims allowed to refuse entry by the police?

          Were the citizens free to go outside?

          Could any future crime, say a "hit and run" accident be justification for the police to shutdown an entire city and go house to house?  

          That IS the standard you are accepting as "policing" now.

          You see, on Wednesday, a week ago, on my way into work at the Buffalo Airport, they had a vehicle check point. (DHS, NFTA & guard dogs),  I was ordered into a holding lot (usually where the taxi's park) and ordered to put my car in park, turn it off AND then they proceeded to search my vehicle.

          I was not suspected of any crime, I was not free to go, I was not charged with any crime and they illegally stopped me and illegally searched my vehicle.  I was treated as though I was a criminal and that I must prove my innocence to their arbitrary satisfaction.

          It wasn't until they saw my employee name tag that they asked me if I worked there and then let me go.

          I do not accept these things as a legitimate "police" power absent any court order or warrant.  They were not in "hot pursuit" of any criminal, I was suspected of being one because I was going about my personal business of providing resources to keep me alive, ie working.

          GET IT?

          Add to the Kabuki theater, a coworker that came in an hour after me said the "check point" was gone.  I guess they don't work after 5pm.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:59:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who would accept that as legitimate? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sybil Liberty, blueyedace2

            If that happened to me I'd be damn sure to take the names of all the officers involved and then talk to a lawyer to see what my legal options are. Did you do any of that or are you just complaining about a police state in blog comments?

            •  Hon, I live from paycheck to paycheck. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              That's issue #1.

              I make $9 an hour, after taxes I bring home around $289.  Praytell, where do I get the funds to hire an attorney?

              Issue #2:

              I was mourning the loss of a dear Aunt and had to leave to go out of town, after work that night.  I did speak to my employer about the events when I got back this past Monday and I made it clear that I most likely would get arrested the next time when they illegally stop me.

              I chose not to speak out and demand their names, ask for their search warrant and their probable cause.  My family comes first above and beyond any political posturing.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:38:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  seriously? (7+ / 0-)

            you would compare the Marathon Bombing to a "hit and run"?

            Probable cause?

            And yea, I would have been fairly well pissy if I were stopped on my way to work, assuming that bomber #2 had been apprehended at that point, and I would have requested an explanation for the vehicle check.

            ...but then airport check-ins & metal detectors make me fairly pissy as well. You see.

            "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

            by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:18:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your definition of "policing" could mean (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              anything.   Please understand this.  

              Just because you don't believe it could be used in a certain way does not mean it can't or won't be.

              That's the dangerous waters we are treading right now. The Overton Window being moved where Americans accept without question the unconstitutional actions happening all around us.  Such as the "security theater" in airports.

              Where do we draw the line????

              We've allowed for the "no knock" 3am raids that kill innocents, have we not?  All under the guise of "safety".

              When does their "safety" cross the line into tyranny?  The "shelter in homes" was martial law, all for 1 19yr old kid.

              The pretense for house-to-house raids is immaterial, really.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:33:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no (6+ / 0-)

                my definition of policing does not mean any convoluted thing you choose it to mean.

                willful misunderstanding on your part - you don't get to do that

                embrace your outrage gerrilea, clearly it's very precious to you

                "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:42:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hon, this isn't about me but all of us. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happymisanthropy

                  And what our created government is doing, right now.

                  You are willfully ignoring this reality for some unknown reason(s).

                  We were warned, were we not?

                  Martial Law : Coming to a Neighborhood Near You, Yet It’s Already Here!

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:55:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I was around when Japanese Americans (14+ / 0-)

                    were incarcerated, I watched the round-up of American citizens forced out of their homes and workplaces and onto buses. I damned well know what it looks like.

                    ...and don't call me "Hon"

                    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                    by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:46:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Don't like the condesending attitude do you? (0+ / 0-)

                      Neither do I.  

                      That's the problem with us "Americans" today:

                      I watched the round-up
                      Did you speak out like I'm doing here today? Did you say or do anything except cower in fear or did you believe what was being done was acceptable in our constitutional republic and you rooted them on?

                      Which one is it?

                      Why do you attack me personally for actually pointing out that our government must not do specific things, even for "safety"?

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:50:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I was a small child, I cowered behind my dad. (5+ / 0-)

                        I probably cried, but I definitely never forgot. Like I said, I know what it looks like. Guess that makes me a coward.

                        OTOH, speaking out from behind your keyboard doesn't exactly indicate valor, not in any real sense of the word. You weren't principled enough to file a complaint against a PD you believed to be demonizing you, and yes actually, I have confronted cops and taken their badge numbers a time or two.

                        But then I get the feeling you enjoy playing the victim.

                        Have at it.

                        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                        by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:33:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sweet, now I'm playing a part, got it, wink, wink! (0+ / 0-)

                          I made a reasoned choice last week, confront the paid mercenaries and most assuredly get arrested or go home to be with my family for my Aunt's Funeral.

                          My family, at that moment, was much more important than any political posturing.  

                          We all make choices and I see you failed to address the issue I presented and decided to continue your personal attacks against me.

                          Don't you want us to know the answer?

                          If that occurred today, what would you do?  Since you claim you were a child, you cannot be held accountable for your fears then.

                          How can a 100 square mile area be "an active crime scene" that includes over 1 million residents?  Is going door-to-door without warrant or probable cause actually constitutional?

                          You may wish to believe I'm "hiding behind a keyboard" but clearly I'm not. I've made no efforts to hide who, what or where I am.

                          Will you support me when I confront these mercenaries again?  Or will you accuse me of "playing a victim"?  What do you suggest I do when confronted with unconstitutional tactics of a military occupation?

                          Or will you, like all the others here say that I should sit down and shut up and do what our new masters tell us?

                          Where do you really stand on these issues?  Is our "safety" superior to the rule of law?

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:25:57 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't know whether or not you're a guy (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueyedace2, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                    but if you are, you need to stop being a condescending, sexist jerk.

                    If you're a woman, you need to stop behaving like a condescending, sexist jerk.

                    Nothing human is alien to me.

                    by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:28:12 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  you really think there was no probable cause here? (5+ / 0-)

            Oy!

            •  Not for an entire city, nope. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              The burden is upon our paid public servants to follow that damn piece of paper.

              The video I posted above shows they had no probable cause and they threatened and terrorized innocent Americans even the ones videotaping their actions.

              All for one 19yr kid.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:20:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So they should have done what, then? (6+ / 0-)

                Just broadcast "Come out, come out, wherever you are?" over a loudspeaker a couple of times and then waited for this nice law abiding 19 year old "kid" to turn himself in?

                •  How about employing tried and true detective (0+ / 0-)

                  work?

                  "Hey, Bob Smith over on Prospect Street says there's some guy fitting the description of the bomber".

                  Wasn't he at a party at school the day after the bombing?  Didn't they already profile these guys years ago?

                  http://news.yahoo.com/...

                  Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the dead suspect, studied at a local community college and was a Golden Gloves boxer. He also reportedly had a wife and young child. The FBI questioned him two years ago at the request of the Russian government, but found nothing suspicious, according to the AP.
                  Billions spent on our New American Police State and you want me to believe a total lockdown of a city with door-to-door unconstitutional raids is acceptable?

                  I thought we were the good team?

                  BTW, where did I say he was a "nice law abiding kid"?

                  Oh wait, I didn't.  

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:21:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  how can you possibly have probable cause (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea

              to believe that one guy is hiding in every house in Watertown?

              Or should we call it improbable but still possible cause?

              "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

              by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:47:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  do you believe the police were hellbent (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gramofsam1

                on going to every single door in Watertown even after they apprehended the bomber?

                surely not

                "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:41:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you say (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea

                  "he's probably not here but we're going to search anyway," by definition, you can't have probable cause.

                  "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                  by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:56:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  that wasn't my question (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gramofsam1

                    btw, are you a resident of Watertown, or the greater Boston area?

                    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                    by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:13:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ok, your question (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea
                      do you believe the police were hellbent (0+ / 0-)
                      on going to every single door in Watertown even after they apprehended the bomber?

                      surely not

                      No.  Why did you ask, anyway?
                      btw, are you a resident of Watertown, or the greater Boston area?
                      No.  I wasn't aware at the time that the "shelter in place" was voluntary.  I just heard "lockdown" on the news.  And a lockdown, by definition, is never voluntary.

                      "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                      by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:29:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  why did I ask? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gramofsam1

                        I guess because of the way you phrased your first comment.

                        Gov. Patrick, who ordered it, officially used the term "Shelter in Place" and asked that folks only open their doors to readily identifiable police officers. I do believe the residents cooperated voluntarily, even if they hated it.  

                        As for our high-drama, ratings-obsessed media, "lockdowns" are used to contain a dangerous situation (prisons) and/or to protect a defined area & occupants from a defined threat, or possibly to protect a crime scene... Newtown was locked down.

                        I see no violation of Constitutional rights.

                        I was hoping you could explain why the folks of Watertown were so exuberant following the apprehension of little-brother-bomber.

                        If you tell me it was groupthink, I'm not buying.

                        :)

                        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                        by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:54:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  with your username it's somewhat ironic (0+ / 0-)

                          that I need to point this out, but the bill of rights exists especially to prevent the police from doing things that have overwhelming public support.

                          "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                          by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:58:15 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •   jeebus (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gramofsam1

                            "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                            by Sybil Liberty on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 02:12:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Seriously, jeebus indeed. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sybil Liberty, WB Reeves

                            Interesting to see how many commenters seem to hold the view that Bostonians were cowering, or sheep, or ants- anything but rational adults acting in their own best interest and the interest of the community.

                          •  Easy cases make bad law. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 03:07:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just curious- (0+ / 0-)

                            were you in the Boston area last Friday?
                            If so, how did you respond to shelter in place?
                            If not, how would you have responded?

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                            Kirsanow told a Commission hearing in Detroit on July 19 that if there was another terrorist attack on the United States "and they come from the same ethnic group that attacked the World Trade Center, you can forget about civil rights." He said "not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops, more profiling, there will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights."
                            The only thing we have to fear.

                            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:03:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't quite understand how (0+ / 0-)

                            that answers my question about what you would have done. Unless your answer is that you would be crying in your beer.

                          •  Your insults don't help (0+ / 0-)

                            it's almost as though you're rationalizing the same line of thought that led to the Patriot Act, the Department of Heimatsecurity, and most of the other Bush administration abuses.  And you even echo the same insulting Bush administration lies to do it.  We need this shit to keep us safe, and if you don't agree you're a weenie crying in your beer.

                            And no, I have not seen the local news coverage so I don't know how that might affect my perception of the matter, so what was the point of asking if I was in the area?

                            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:18:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That wasn't an insult (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            that was a question, followed by a comment from you that made absolutely no sense to me if it was supposed to answer the question.
                            Of course you're not required to answer, but you seemed to be critical of the way Bostonians responded to shelter in place so I was curious how you might have responded.

                          •  I don't know what percentage (0+ / 0-)

                            of New Yorkers would stand and cheer for stop-and-frisk, but I'm against it regardless.

                            I saw the video, but without knowing what information/orders the residents were given I can't be sure how I would react.  

                            Probably I'd get arrested right after deciding to comply, for moving too slow.  Especially today since I'm sick.

                            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:20:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well on that we can agree- (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            stop and frisk is atrocious, and to my mind very different from the actions of police in Boston during a manhunt for a bombing suspect.
                            Sorry you're sick, get better soon.

                  •  Who said he probably wasn't there? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sybil Liberty, gramofsam1

                    Probability suggested he was likely in the area they searched. In reality, he'd gotten ever-so-slightly outside of it. There's no rule that suggests the police have to narrow it down to one house in their probability - they cordoned off an area that they believed he was in, probably, with reasonable cause to do so.

                    •  So "probable" in law means (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      "not even remotely probable?"

                      "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                      by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:21:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How did you get that from what I said? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sybil Liberty, gramofsam1

                        They had reason to believe he was in the area and thus commenced searching the area. That is probable cause.

                        If someone was searching for him in Atlanta, they wouldn't have probable cause. But they cordoned off a very localized area.

                        •  but had they missed him in Watertown (0+ / 0-)

                          they would be justified in searching every home in the entire US, since it's a near certainty he's still in the country, therefore probable cause.

                          "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                          by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:54:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's an illogical application of what I said. nm (0+ / 0-)
                          •  it's a logical necessity (0+ / 0-)

                            if the only limit on "probable cause" is that the object you're seeking is probably within the search radius.

                            We both agree there are limits.  Who gets to decide what the limits are?

                            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:30:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The limits have not usually been related to area (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            as much as scope. Scope may cover area in many cases - but it is not REALLY about the area, though many warrants do need to state specific places to narrow the scope. In an issue like this where the issue is not just evidence but immediate public safety, the scope of the search naturally suggests the police would have more leeway to collect an armed and dangerous suspect. However, they still do not have the right to collect evidence for any other reason in the homes they enter.

                            At any rate, the vast majority - if not all - of the searches of homes in Watertown were voluntary by all accounts. There is absolutely NO limit to the amount of searches an officer can request and be granted on that basis. If there was an example of someone not submitting to a voluntary search, what legal protocols should be used would differ based on the situation. No one has presented a situation where anyone's rights were violated in Watertown; the whole idea is speculative.

                          •  Additionally, your point seems to rest on the (0+ / 0-)

                            "slippery slope" fallacy, which is - as all fallacies are - a false dilemma. No such thing, really.

                          •  Not saying it's a slippery slope (0+ / 0-)

                            you just haven't articulated any objective standards for limiting the "scope" of such a search, where you don't have probable cause for the individual premises as required by the fourth amendment but you have a probability that he's somewhere in the area.

                            What is the limit, and how can I be sure police will be punished if they cross it?  And how can I be 100% sure the police won't be allowed to redraw the line wherever they see fit on the next terrorism case?

                            The increasing number of no-knock warrants has led to increasing numbers of people killed in the service of no-knock warrants... is that a slippery slope fallacy too?

                            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                            by happymisanthropy on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:35:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
                            Two, it's very very very very rare for evidence from a lawful search to be excluded just because it's not specifically what the police were looking for.  I think the only time that would ever happen is if police had searched say a briefcase or a desk drawer that it's logically impossible for a fugitive to hide inside.  

                            and I strongly disagree that rights were not violated, that search manifestly weakened the rights of everyone in America.

                            When the cops come to my door and say "we're here to do a warrantless search," how can I tell whether it's one that meets your standards of legality or not?

                            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                            by happymisanthropy on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:12:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who says it's very rare? (0+ / 0-)
                            Two, it's very very very very rare for evidence from a lawful search to be excluded just because it's not specifically what the police were looking for.
                            Do you have statistics or facts to back this up? It's actually a relatively common error that leads to exclusion from what I've heard from criminal lawyers. Anecdotal, so I may be wrong, but I see no basis to suggest that illegal searches are conducted all the time and evidence is still admitted. Many things are excluded in pre-trial on many cases.
                          •  I wasn't talking about illegal searches (0+ / 0-)

                            I was talking about legal searches that find, say, pot when they're looking for stolen jewelry.  You implied that any unrelated evidence found in the Boston searches would be inadmissible, and I'm pretty sure that's not true.  

                            Especially if the searches were consensual.

                            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                            by happymisanthropy on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 12:41:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Depending on the warrant and what's found... (0+ / 0-)

                            it may or may not be legal to utilize extraneous evidence found and may constitute an illegal search. If someone has contraband, I would advise they be careful in allowing searches generally.

                            Any unrelated evidence found in any unwarranted (meaning the probable cause searches - not the warranted search of the boy's home, which was probably written sufficiently wide in scope) Boston searches would likely be inadmissable. We will probably never know because they don't seem to be admitting any of it.

                          •  jkl; (0+ / 0-)
                            No one has presented a situation where anyone's rights were violated in Watertown; the whole idea is speculative.
                            I would argue that the police pointing guns at homeowners without a damn good reason is a violation of rights, frisking people who do not match the description of the fugitive is a violation of rights, and getting consent from people who don't realize they have the right to refuse is also a violation of rights.

                            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                            by happymisanthropy on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:19:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  IANAL, so I can't be entirely sure you're wrong (0+ / 0-)

                      but I am entirely sure the logic here is fatally flawed.

                      There's no rule that suggests the police have to narrow it down to one house in their probability - they cordoned off an area that they believed he was in, probably, with reasonable cause to do so.
                      The flaw being that the bigger the circle you draw, the greater the chance that the thing you're looking for is in it.

                      thus any search could have probable cause as long as you make it broad enough (assuming the thing you're looking for actually exists).

                      So if police had absolutely no idea where he was, but they knew that he was probably still somewhere in the metropolitan area, they would have probable cause to search every home in the city?

                      "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                      by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:51:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  I promise they're not out to get you. (12+ / 0-)

        and they didn't violate any criminal law, nor was any of it intended.

        •  I could care less what their "intent" is. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StrayCat, mrkvica, happymisanthropy

          The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

          And who said they were out to get me again?  Do you really not understand the constitutional republic we have?

          You cannot promise me a thing, btw.  

          Our created government must follow the rules we gave it, ie, the constitution.

          When they act outside of it, they are violating the highest law we have.

          They terrorized the people of Watertown to get one 19 yr old kid suspected of committing a crime.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:02:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes all the people cheering the police (9+ / 0-)

            felt so terrorized by the police, not the kid throwing bombs.

          •  Oh ffs. The only people who even attempted (11+ / 0-)

            to terrorize the people of Watertown were the Tsarnaev brothers.
            Tell you what, hows about you take a little trip to Massachusetts  and ask the people of Watertown how they feel about the cops who terrorized them.

            •  The masses can easily be led. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              Like ants, humans are easily led

              Implications for evacuations and how to guide people safely in an emergency will arise from the discovery that most of us are happy to play follow-my-leader, even if we are trailing after someone who does not know where they are going and taking the most meandering route.

              Even more striking, even when we are shown a faster route, we prefer to stick with the old one and tell others to take the long road too, a finding that could have lethal implications when it comes to evacuating a building or ship in an emergency.

              http://www.snagfilms.com/...

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:29:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Quite the coffee shop revolutionary (4+ / 0-)

                aren't you?

                •  What the hell does this mean? (0+ / 0-)

                  Are you trying to imply I'm a terrorist now?

                  Cease and desist.

                  Here on DK we allow open discussion.  Many here have tried to employ "group think" and it fails the majority of the time.  DK is not an echo chamber.

                  If you have something legitimate to add to this discussion, I will entertain honest debate, not false logic and ridicule to shutdown anyone you don't agree with.  

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:10:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Whoa. That is not implied by (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Catte Nappe, gramofsam1

                    "revolutionary."

                    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                    by jeff in nyc on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:14:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Jeff, then explain it to me. (0+ / 0-)

                      What was this poster implying here?

                      Maybe you weren't aware what our government claims:

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:24:22 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Pretty sure it was referencing your implication (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gramofsam1, PsychoSavannah

                        that the sheepish "Masses" need to be taken by the hand and led in the proper direction.

                        Also, possibly, the comparison of "the Masses" to insects.

                        Nothing human is alien to me.

                        by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:36:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Hey, don't blame me, I'm not the scientist that (0+ / 0-)

                          did the study.

                          Really.

                          Attacking the messenger because you don't like the message isn't productive conversation.

                          If we don't want to be equated to ants, then maybe we shouldn't act that way, right?

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:50:19 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I somehow doubt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gramofsam1

                            that the scientist in question would agree with the equivalency that you're indulging in.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:00:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please read the link. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happymisanthropy
                            "These results parallel similar findings in ants and fish, and show that very simple processes can underlie human behaviour" commented Dr Simon Reader of Utrecht University, who reports the findings today in the journal Biology Letters.
                            Seems he does believe it.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:10:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Underlie" isn't a synonym for causative (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JeremySchro, gramofsam1

                            and it certainly doesn't mean that human behavior is the equivalent of ant behavior. Of course, since you like to invent conspiracies, it's likely the distinction will escape you. As does the distinction between "Messianic" and "Messiah complex". The first is a descriptive, the second is a diagnosis.

                            Now why don't you keep your word and go bother someone else?

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:22:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  How do you read that from what I said. (8+ / 0-)

                    You have been insulting people who think that what the police did in Watertown and Boston was justified by calling them essentially mindless sheep. How is that open dialogue?

                    Please stop playing the victim. Everything about your comments reaks of 'I am a prophet trying to save you from your tyrannical government'. That's not dialogue, that's conspiracy non-sense.

                    •  Not so much conspiracy (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JeremySchro

                      as a misguided Messianic impulse.

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:32:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Hon, really...I pointed out that scientific (0+ / 0-)

                      studies shows that humans are easily led like ants.

                      The point was that "group think" or "popularity" of the poster saying I should go to Boston and ask them what they think of the police.  Popularity supported actions does not make them constitutional, really.

                      The poster used an emotional and empty argument that science has proven can be dangerous.

                      Are you now against science too?

                      Have you read the constitution?

                      Here let me help you:

                      Amendment IV

                      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

                      Amendment V: an overview

                      The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

                      Constitutional Attorneys far more versed on our laws than myself tells us these things are beyond the pale.

                      Glenn Greenwald on Boston Marathon Arrest: Will We Deny Constitutional Rights in the Name of Fear?

                      GLENN GREENWALD: The issues are framed by this overarching question that really has driven all of these questions since the September 11th attack, which is: Are we going to dismantle our traditional legal protocols and constitutional protections in the name of fear, and in particular under the banner of one word, which is "terrorism"? And all of the controversies brewing over this case are essentially a byproduct of that overarching question.
                      Who is the Real Enemy of the State?
                      the Obama Administration has maintained the stance that the President has the power to detain and curtail the rights of anyone he decides is an “enemy combatant” – including U.S. Citizens found within the U.S. like Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, a naturalized American citizen – as enemy combatants. This definition is important because it subjects alleged criminals to the Law of War. This mean they can face sanctions without the benefit of judicial review including indefinite detention without trial or charge, transfer to foreign jurisdictions or entities (a.k.a. extraordinary rendition where they ship you off to a foreign jurisdiction to be tortured), and military tribunals. In essence, the NDAA seeks to designate the United States as an active war zone in regards to allegations of terrorism, or support of terrorism, wherein our most cherished all while putting your basic Constitutional Rights subject to the President’s whim. Herein we see the inherent danger of the expanding police state.
                      So, in the end, anyone that doesn't agree with you, like Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now or Glenn Greenwald is a "conspiracy theorist", got it.

                      Then you really were equating me to a terrorists...thanks...

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:48:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, we here at DailyKos allow open discussion (10+ / 0-)

                    But then again, most us here don't try and use a personal experience (which obviously pissed you off) and play that off as a legal basis to decry the police manhunt and the extraordinary lengths to which law enforcement and national guard (and I believe US Army Reserves) went to protect the innocent citizens of the Boston area from bomb-flinging, 100s-of-rounds-firing, suspected mass murderers.

                    Yes, there was a traffic stop. There was a manhunt on for a 2 people in an area with over 4.4 million people.

                    How the fuck did you think they would find these guys? Act like Encyclopedia Brown and detective the guys out of some hotel or abandoned building?

                    I think you've been watching way too much Law & Order.

                    Exigent circumstances and selective enforcement  I highly suggest you use those links I've kindly left for you to go and read about them. You apparently need to.


                    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                    by Angie in WA State on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:36:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I've already explained how. Good old fashioned (0+ / 0-)

                      detective work.

                      And it was a citizen that pointed them to the suspect after martial law was lifted.

                      See how that works?  We all can add to our collective safety.  We are not obligated to do so however.

                      BTW, I don't have cable and have never watched "Law and Order".

                      My personal experiences with our New American Police State proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they can do whatever they damn well please, all in the name of "safety".

                      Glenn Greenwald was right.

                      http://www.democracynow.org/...

                      Either we have a constitutional republic whereby our paid public servants follow the supreme law of the land, or we are no better than any other Banana Republic.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:59:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  and I've read a dozen or more responses to your (4+ / 0-)

                        multiple posts in this diary - most of them rejecting your claims of "unconstitutional" actions during the traffic stop you were involved in during the manhunt in the Boston area.

                        Many of them, like mine, link to sources which explain why your repeated claims of having your civil rights infringed are incorrect and/or baseless.

                        Your continued assertion that with an imminent threat to the lives of over 4 million citizens, because the location of the two suspects (WHOSE names and faces were actually discovered by some fucking DETECTIVE WORK using data from business security cameras, traffic cameras and personal phone cameras) was UNKNOWN....

                        that the police should not have urged citizens to remain in their homes while as many law enforcement & national guard as possible raced to the area to conduct a house to house search (which the recent manhunt in California for Dorner proved was necessary, as the two could well have invaded a private home and have the occupants hostage)...

                        that some detectives on the job should have been enough to find and 'put a collar' on the two suspects, and that that is and should have been what was done to find and capture the suspects?

                        Yeah, that's just so much marlarky, based on, again what appears to be your personal piss-off from having your fucking day interrupted during a traffic stop.

                        Got news for ya, I've been in just such a traffic stop at least twice, over the years, during a regular police traffic stop to check for drunk drivers, here in WA State. Because, if you are not drinking, then there's no problem.

                        In your case, if you weren't a murdering criminal, then there was no problem. Which, I assume was the case, as here you are, bitching about it to a crowd of people who absolutely no patience for someone do so, in light of the bigger issue.

                        Grow up, suck it up. If you really think your rights were violated? File a damned lawsuit for the stop and search. Or STFU about it already.


                        "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                        by Angie in WA State on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:15:11 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Grow up??? I was in Buffalo New York (0+ / 0-)

                          not Boston, hon.  Maybe had you actually READ what I posted and stopped with the emotional knee-jerk reactions, you'd had figured that part out!

                          I have no patience for your bullshit bullying either and this is what it amounts to.  You can't handle the fact I have a different opinion than you and you want to shut me the fuck up.

                          This is not a popularity contest, get that through your head.

                          Your strawman doesn't work here.  You're the one going on about the illegal stop I endured last week.  

                          I will not let it slide next time.  I will file charges against the psuedo-cops that are private NFTA security guards.

                          Disinfo works by attacking the person, not the argument.  Great job maybe you should get a job in the State Department.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:30:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  "Martial law"- WTF? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blueyedace2

                        I suggest you look it up.

                        •  I'm sorry... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          happymisanthropy

                          Bombing suspect captured after military-police lockdown of Boston

                          It was a "Military/Police Lockdown".

                          Happy now?

                          Aren't "lockdowns" the term used in prisons????

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:36:53 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm sorry too but that's bullshit- (6+ / 0-)

                            a) A temporary directive to shelter in place does not come remotely close to the imposition of martial law, (again, look it up) and

                            b) I am personally acquainted with a guy who chose to ignore the directive and go to work in Cambridge. Nothing happened to him- except that his wife is still furious that he acted like a selfish cowboy asshole.

                          •  From the link I provided above: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happymisanthropy
                            Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, issued a “shelter in place” order early Friday, shut down Boston’s mass transit, and recommended that businesses close. According to the “shelter in place” order, Boston residents had to stay inside with their doors locked and not open them to anyone but a properly identified police officer. The order was progressively extended over some 100 square miles of the Boston metropolitan area, covering approximately 1 million people.
                            Was that "order" lawful or constitutional?  How could 1 million people covering a 100 square mile area be suspects in 1 crime?

                            As for you friends husband, so what providing food and shelter is "selfish"???

                            I could ill afford to lose a couple days pay.  Is that "selfish" or realistic?  I'm not independently wealthy, I don't have a husband to support me.  Will you or the State provide me with funds to pay for my expenses when they order me to not leave my home?

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:05:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nothing in your link (3+ / 0-)

                            describes martial law. Not sure why you refuse to look it up.

                            As for the husband, he is not in a position where losing a day's work would be a problem. He left his wife and two little kids alone just a few blocks from where the MIT cop had just been shot and killed, with the killer still loose in the area. That's what she's calling selfish.

                            But the larger point- which you consistently ignore- is that none of this describes martial law. This was a police action. The military did not seize control of civil government.

                          •  Maybe we're debating in circles here. (0+ / 0-)

                            The Militarization of Policing in America

                            American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war. Federal funding in the billions of dollars has allowed state and local police departments to gain access to weapons and tactics created for overseas combat theaters – and yet very little is known about exactly how many police departments have military weapons and training, how militarized the police have become, and how extensively federal money is incentivizing this trend. It’s time to understand the true scope of the militarization of policing in America and the impact it is having in our neighborhoods. Since March 6th, ACLU affiliates in 25 states filed over 260 public records requests with law enforcement agencies and National Guard offices to determine the extent to which federal funding and support has fueled the militarization of state and local police departments. Stay tuned as this project develops.
                            The police have become the military.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:27:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's a related, but distinct (5+ / 0-)

                            topic. Martial law means much more than police using tactics or equipment derived from or supported by the military.

                            It would mean, for example, that the husband would be subject to court martial for ignoring the directive and going to work that day. Instead, he's in trouble with no one but his wife.

                      •  The shelter in place order is likely why he hid (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Catte Nappe, gramofsam1

                        there and was so easily found as soon as it was lifted. It's also suggested they lifted the 'shelter in place' before nightfall to try to draw him out and get further information. I don't think that suggests that sheltering in place was a BAD idea and failed. The streets stayed safe, the kid had to hide in a spot where he was likely to be caught (and eventually was), and everything worked out smoothly.

                        If any Bostonians feel their individual rights were violated in some way, they should absolutely report it. Anyone should ANY time their rights are violated. Certainly it's possible some violation happened - but there's no evidence presented to that effect in this post. Issuing a "shelter in place" order for public safety is not a Constitutional rights violation, nor is a request to search within a cordoned area for suspects at large.

                  •  How I'd read it (9+ / 0-)

                    I'd think a "coffee shop revolutionary" is in the same general category as an "armchair quarterback" or "keyboard commando". Someone full of opinions and ready to share them, but with little practical experience of the subject at hand.

                    "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

                    by Catte Nappe on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:48:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  What was unconstitutional? (7+ / 0-)

            The stop-search described above was clearly unconstitutional IF permission was denied (which isn't made clear in the story). I get that.

            Telling citizens to "shelter in place" for their own safety and knocking on doors searching for particular criminals and checking for public safety does not violate the 4th or any amendment. Furthermore, police officers can always REQUEST to search - you need not comply. They generally cannot use noncompliance as a "probable cause" (unless there's some indication of a hostage or otherwise violent situation) and they cannot search and seize indiscriminately. But the manhunt wasn't indiscriminate.

      •  Chomsky would probably call the actions of the (0+ / 0-)

        security services in Boston (including police) 'state terrorism,' which we all know gets a blank check in this country, especially when we're the ones committing it.

        Think I'm engaging in hyperbole? Then tell me the names of the LAPD officers who shot up the pickup truck with the two Latino women delivering newspapers during LA's recent manhunt. You (the rhetorical you) can't because those names have not been released. We'll probably never know unless the LAPD is forced to release them during discovery in a civil trial. And my guess is the LAPD will settle out of court with a gag order, so as to prevent discovery.

        •  Which has zero to do with events in Boston (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Be Skeptical

          You do realize that the LAPD and the Boston PD have no organizational connection, right?

          BTW, better let Chomsky speak for himself.

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 10:27:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I offered the LAPD example as proof that law (0+ / 0-)

            enforcement, even when committing state terrorism, gets a blank check. Q.E.D. Not a single LAPD officer is under arrest for that mass fussilade unloaded upon the pickup truck that sent the two Latinas to the hospital. More to the point, we don't even know the names of the anonymous Rambo-wanna-bes.

            No, I shall employ Chomsky's frame even if has not yet himself come out and condemned the Boston Blitzkrieg yet. Come on, man, the Boston PD shot up that boat even without knowing who was actually in it and even though they now acknowledge that Tsarnaev had no weapon. WTF??? If federal officials had not given a 'cease fire', the Boston PD would have succeeded in Dorner-ing Tsarnaev by extra-judicially executing him.

            •  Charles, Is the LAPD incident under investigation? (0+ / 0-)

              If there is an active investigation, I wouldn't expect for the names to be made public.

              How do you know the Boston PD shot up the boat without knowing who was in it? You have a source for that, or is it simply an assumption on your part?

              How does the fact that it was the intervention Federal Authorities that saved Tsarnaev square with the frame of state terrorism?

              If you're going to invoke Chomsky's theoretical frame, you're obligated to demonstrate how it applies, not just claim that he would agree with you. That's an argument from authority which you are not entitled to make without providing  a foundation for it.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 11:23:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why wouldn't the names of suspected LAPD Rambo (0+ / 0-)

                asshats be made public? They had and have no qualms about making Dorner's name public, nor any other suspect tried in the harsh glare of the media spotlight.

                The Boston PD knew someone was in the boat, from the homeowner who called it in and their own thermal imaging. At the time they unleashed their barrage, however, they could not know it was Tsarnaev inside. (This is an assumption on my part, based on my reading, since the official sources, including the FBI itself, are continually revising their official statements, to put it politely.)

                Jesus, one FBI official there had the foresight, the wisdom and the simple human decency to call a cease fire (good on him or her). That does not cancel out the lockdown of an entire metropolitan area, nor its investiture by imperial storm troopers. I read somewhere, don't remember where, that a Fed there demanded BPD cease fire.

                I'll be happy to demonstrate how Chomsky's idea of 'state terrorism' applies, although one would think it is self-evident in the visuals. Here's how Chomsky defines terrorism: "Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims." (From an interview with David Barsamian, http://www.chomsky.info/...).

                That phrase 'coercive means' is one reason why it's so important that the authorities keep repeating, ad nauseum, that the Shelter-in-Place request (aka 'Lockdown') was voluntary. Even if the SIP really were not voluntary, according to a layperson's understanding of volition, the authorities will have to insist upon it, lest the images of security forces ordering people from houses at gunpoint and aiming their weapons at video- and photographers documenting the assault start to capture the narrative and undermine the state's rationale for its monopoly on the use of force.

                •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

                  Probably because Dorner was a wanted fugitive in a series of murders, whereas the LAPD presumably knows where the officers in question are and they haven't yet been charged. Police agencies do not,as a rule, release the names of people under investigation unless the have been charged and/or are in flight.

                  Your assumption may or may not be correct but it's an assumption not a fact. You've no business treating it as though it were a fact and you certainly can't expect others to accept it as fact.

                  There was no lockdown. People were advised not to go out and remain secure in their homes. Can you cite a single instance where anyone was forced to comply or was arrested for failure to comply?

                  Re: your Chomsky quote, I repeat the above question. The presence of police forces does not, in itself, equate to coercion. Further, what political or religious goal do you imagine was being pursued? As for "other goals", do you think Chomsky means to include all attempts at apprehending criminals? If not, I really don't see how the cited definition applies. I've attended and participated in demonstrations held during declared states of emergency, literally under the guns of the authorities and they wouldn't even qualify under this definition.

                  While pretending that there is no distinction between a lockdown and a shelter in place advisory may be necessary to advance your theoretical framing, it isn't going to convince anyone who's actually experienced the former.  

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 10:31:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course, US citizens can't rely on their own (0+ / 0-)

                    media to present instances that counter the official narrative.

                    But if you take a look at this link (from the UK) and, specifically, at the images and video embedded within its story, you'll be hard pressed to maintain your position that no one was "forced to comply":

                    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

                    •  I appreciate you providing the link (0+ / 0-)

                      Obviously there are some questions that need answers here.

                      That said, there are some real problems with the reporting. What we have is a video of a single instance of forcible removal which is presented as though it were evidence of more than that. We aren't given any specifics as to why the action was taken. Instead, we get a string of unconnected comments regarding police actions as they set up a perimeter around Tsarnaev's hiding place. It's hardly unusual for the cops to clear an area where they have reason to believe a shoot out with a suspect may be imminent.

                      None of this is particularly surprising since The Daily Mail is a Right Wing tabloid with a history of publishing stories that have turned out to be false as well as attacking anti-racist and left activist groups. Here's an example of The Daily Mails brand of "journalism":

                      On 13 June 2011, a study by Dr Matt Jones and Michal Kucewicz[73] on the effects of cannabinoid receptor activation in the brain was published in The Journal of Neuroscience[73][74][75] and the British medical journal The Lancet.[76] The study was used in articles by CBS News,[77] Le Figaro,[78] Bild[79] and others. In October 2011, the Daily Mail printed an article citing the research, titled "Just ONE cannabis joint can bring on schizophrenia as well as damaging memory." UK political party Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), which campaigns for ending drug prohibition, criticised the Daily Mail,[80] and contacted Dr Matt Jones, author of the study, who said he was "disappointed but not surprised" at the Daily Mail′s reporting, and clarified: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia".[80] Dorothy Bishop, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, in her blog awarded the Daily Mail the "Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation",[81][82][83][84] calling the Daily Mail's article "the worst misrepresentation of a scientific article in a national newspaper."[85]
                      Link

                      Given this, it's no shock that the story is almost entirely sourced to Infowars, Alex Jones conspiracy mongering website. To be blunt, if Alex Jones said the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.

                      Despite the slant of the coverage, even The Mail has to admit, well into the body of the story, that the video is only a single instance. That doesn't excuse it. I personally want to know what justification there is for marching these people out of their home at gunpoint. Still, it doesn't prove anything beyond a single instance of possible misconduct. If this were the rule rather than the exception I'd expect to see a flood of such videos on the internet. Perhaps we will yet. In which case you will have the evidence you need.  

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 09:07:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Pursuant to your comments, I was disturbed to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        WB Reeves

                        see that notorious and scurrilous site FreeRepublic also posting this video and story prominently. (I have no idea of the provenance originally of the video and cannot vouch 100% for its bona fides).

                        Counterpoised to my own tentative reference to Chomsky's 'state terrorism,' I think it only fair also to mention the numerous Bostonians (William Rivers Pitt perhaps the most well known here) who reported not being 'terrorized' or even 'put out' in the slightest by the Shelter in Place regime. If I understand their thesis properly, they viewed their efforts as cooperating with law enforcement in a joint community effort to apprehend a brigand.

                        I'm sure my own views are influenced by having watched the LAPD smash up the Occupy Los Angeles encampment at our city hall, in the process brutalizing and violating the civil rights of many people whom I deeply respect. There has been zero accountability for that outrage so far (other than that City Attorney Carmen Trutanich is on the ropes in his bid for re-election and it couldn't happen to a nicer fellow, imho.). One can hope that civil torts offer some remedy to those Angelenos who learned that the First Amendment is more honored in the breach, than in the observance.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site