This is nuts. So your solution to this would be for the authorities to draw up a warrant for each house to be searched in Watertown and have that warrant then issued by a judge so that they can search for a suspect who may well be holding the occupants of the house captive? My guess is that a blanket warrant has been issued authorizing the authorities to take whatever actions are necessary to locate and detain the suspect believed to be in hiding in Watertown at this point. It's amazing how some people will take the position that the Constitution is not a suicide pact when it effects things they support and then immediately fall back on their Constitutional rights when things they don't like are happening. I guess that's the benefit of living in a free society, eh?
That's even scarier. You're saying the government should stay out of the business of informing the public when they think it would be wise for them to stay inside. Not insisting. Not arresting people who dont... ...simply recommending. Are you one of those people who flies through stop signs because you're not going to let the man tell you what to do?
Please don't imply what would be my solution. I've never said that methods used in Boston are unacceptable. In fact, I mentioned that the issue is complex and not easy to solve. My point is that prolonged lockdown (which this does not seem to be) sets a dangerous precedent. Today it was completely legit. What if tomorrow there is a homicidal criminal on the run? Would you be ok with locking a city down? After all, the premise is similar: a bad guy is out on a killing spree, wouldn't it be SAFER for everyone to remain inside until authorities found him? My point was about Federal government. People with power want to get more power and yapping about public safety is a great way to achieve that. There has to be a balance and precedents like this expand boundaries of state power. One time to catch a mass murderer -- no problem. Just make sure it actually stays one time and for extraordinary situation like this.
"Lockdown" is your term (or the media's term). Not reality. My lab was closed today. A few coworkers still went to work. No one was arrested. I was in the city. I could walk to places if I wanted to. No one stopped me. Businesses could open if they wanted to. My boss grabbed lunch at a local deli. He was not detained for breaking a curfew. The city was pretty damn empty, because not many wanted to go outside. Because of the information provided by the Mass gov. There is no "precedent" here.
No. I obey laws. My concern is that power of "the man" does not expend beyond necessary (yes, there is a question of definition of "necessary"). For a large part of my life I lived under dictatorial government and know from personal experience where banner of safety can lead if you let "the man" play unchecked.
This is how i feel about it,but people love their real life Bruce Willis movie going on right now and don't want to have to think that what they are being fed is bullshit. You are free,as long as it's their version,but free thought will be shut down with labels. You are either with us or against us. I'm not convinced of anything in this case,maybe these 2 kids did do it. but i am certainly willing to entertain the thought that mainstream media is a corrupt poison that needs a fucking leash,and that far too many people take it's word as gosphel. When people are told that there will be gun control,50% will curse the gov and its tyranny,but perconditioned notions of what Islam is capable of,the gov MUST be telling the truth.
Great!!! I'm really relieved that this was the case. Means my fears were poorly founded. Seriously, I'm really glad to hear this!
This I agree with. 9/11 was a disaster for civil liberties in this country and it essentially reformed our foreign policy into a state of continual war. The people leading our government took full advantage of the opportunity to expand the state's control in matters of security and law enforcement in whatever direction they saw fit. They did this in ways that made it hard for even federal judges to push back against clear abuses of authority.
In a very ironic situation the slain MIT police officer volunteered at a gym that was run by a trainer who happened to have trained dead bomber. It's not likely they knew each other but he also sparred with a pretty good boxer in Edwin Rodriguez who ironically became a father on April 15
What happened after 9/11 is not going to happen again. You had a unique convergence of events there with stakeholders who did not understand what they were getting the country into at the time. Nobody asked when the War on Terrorism would end or what its effects on us would be. The War on Drugs is a similar long-term conflict that has warped us. We're more likely to end those wars in the next 5 years than to start new ones. We can't really afford to do anything else at this point.
