Government response to Boston Marathon bombs; warrantless searches & soldiers

[Trigger Time]

Is that seriously what this is to you? Two kids made pipe bombs? Really?

I have no problem with the government response. This was a terrorist attack on an international sporting event on American soil. I find it ironic that the same people calling for heads to roll because of an insufficient response to a terrorist attack in Benghazi are now complaining about too much of a response to a terrorist attack within our very borders.

A couple of kids with pipe bombs, indeed.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the rest of your post but I do want to say that there IS a huge difference in what is acceptable on U.S. soil versus a war zone.

I am not displeased with the amount of manpower used to zone off the area the suspects were in. I am concerned if there were police putting innocent citizens at gun point or forcing their way illegally into houses. I don't know if they did that or not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the rest of your post but I do want to say that there IS a huge difference in what is acceptable on U.S. soil versus a war zone.

I am not displeased with the amount of manpower used to zone off the area the suspects were in. I am concerned if there were police putting innocent citizens at gun point or forcing their way illegally into houses. I don't know if they did that or not.

We have evidence of evacuation at gunpoint:

We have here a man 'voluntarily' being evacuated from his home.

 

[Sharpie]

Are you serious or generating argument for the fun of it?

The problem with Benghazi is that our people were under attack for hours and not only was assistance not given, those who could have given assistance in time to save those lives were forbidden to do so. The problem is Boston is that the rights of the people were trampled on WHICH DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING contributing to the apprehension of the fugitive. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other either in theory or practice.

The massive response by law enforcement and national guard absolutely did factor into the quick capture of the terrorists in this case. I also have a problem with the response to Benghazi, I believe we should have had an overwhelming military response to protect our people. But I believe that to be the case regardless of where the attack on our citizens occurs. I believe an overwhelming response is MORE important if the attack happens on our soil, not less. Therein lies the difference between you and me, I believe. Terrorism damages more than the simple body count when it occurs at home.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The massive response by law enforcement and national guard absolutely did factor into the quick capture of the terrorists in this case. I also have a problem with the response to Benghazi, I believe we should have had an overwhelming military response to protect our people. But I believe that to be the case regardless of where the attack on our citizens occurs. I believe an overwhelming response is MORE important if the attack happens on our soil, not less. Therein lies the difference between you and me, I believe. Terrorism damages more than the simple body count when it occurs at home.

You completely missed my point. Responding with force to prevent the death of our people and trampling on the rights of our people because a BG *may* be in the general area are two entirely different things. The absolute nature of these rights you consider so conditional, malleable, and negotiable are the only thing standing between us and the populations of countries like Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, or Syria.

 

[Destro]

We have evidence of evacuation at gunpoint:

We have here a man 'voluntarily' being evacuated from his home.

evidence? or hearsay and conjecture?

 

[Sharpie]

You completely missed my point. Responding with force to prevent the death of our people and trampling on the rights of our people because a BG *may* be in the general area are two entirely different things. The absolute nature of these rights you consider so conditional, malleable, and negotiable are the only thing standing between us and the populations of countries like Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, or Syria.

I do not consider the momentary favor to the government's legitimate interest in pubilc safety in extraordinary circumstances against individual rights to be a tipping point the plunges us to the depths of the worst of despotic regimes. Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. We are in no way comparable to the countries you mentioned, and to compare us to such nations is simplistic and ignores factors too numerous to mention.

 

[IndyDave1776]

evidence? or hearsay and conjecture?

If you choose to believe that a picture presented by the Boston Globe of a man being 'evacuated' from his home at gunpoint is conjecture, believe any goddamned thing you like. It isn't like we don't already know you are a government/cop worshiper.

 

[Destro]

When police act like the military and look like the military then they are military. Just because their patches are different doesn't mean their tactics aren't unconstitutional. Paramilitary police is not within their constitutional duties and we need to elect law makers to effect a mandatory change on them immediately and rope them back in.

where does it say they can't wear multicam and subdued patches?

 

[Destro]

If you choose to believe that a picture presented by the Boston Globe of a man being 'evacuated' from his home at gunpoint is conjecture, believe any goddamned thing you like. It isn't like we don't already know you are a government/cop worshiper.

ahh...so you believe whatever the media feeds you, got it

 

[IndyDave1776]

I do not consider the momentary favor to the government's legitimate interest in pubilc safety in extraordinary circumstances against individual rights to be a tipping point the plunges us to the depths of the worst of despotic regimes. Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. We are in no way comparable to the countries you mentioned, and to compare us to such nations is simplistic and ignores factors too numerous to mention.

Abuses which become commonplace are first done once, then infrequently, then frequently.

Since you apparently buy into the 'common sense' justification of deviation from constitutional government, then consider the following:

1. Who gets to determine what is 'legitimate'?

2. Who gets to determine the boundaries on 'exceptions'?

3. If the slippery slope is false, then why has it been proven out in practice, particularly in the time since the beginning of the FD Roosevelt administration? You certainly don't mean to imply that your philosophical theory trumps proven results?

 

[level.eleven]

If you choose to believe that a picture presented by the Boston Globe of a man being 'evacuated' from his home at gunpoint is conjecture, believe any goddamned thing you like. It isn't like we don't already know you are a government/cop worshiper.

And what were the circumstances? Perhaps a controlled detonation in the area? Suspected explosives in the area? Suspect in the area? You know, the house with the boat was evacuated. Sort of a safety measure before the flashbangs and bullets fly.

 

[Destro]

3. If the slippery slope is false, then why has it been proven out in practice, particularly in the time since the beginning of the FD Roosevelt administration? You certainly don't mean to imply that your philosophical theory trumps proven results?

your arguement regarding the Boston incident seems rest on the theory that there was a government overreach, of which the only evidence your intrepration of events presented in the media

 

[Sharpie]

Abuses which become commonplace are first done once, then infrequently, then frequently.

Since you apparently buy into the 'common sense' justification of deviation from constitutional government, then consider the following:

1. Who gets to determine what is 'legitimate'?

2. Who gets to determine the boundaries on 'exceptions'?

3. If the slippery slope is false, then why has it been proven out in practice, particularly in the time since the beginning of the FD Roosevelt administration? You certainly don't mean to imply that your philosophical theory trumps proven results?

The Supreme Court ultimately decides on legitimate exceptions. One must remember that the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. The entire existence of our judicial branch of government is to interpret laws and apply them to ever changing circumstances.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the Roosevelt argument, but I will clarify that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies when applied universally. Certainly, things can go downhill. That doesn't mean that they WILL go downhill. Correlation is not causation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Supreme Court ultimately decides on legitimate exceptions. One must remember that the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. The entire existence of our judicial branch of government is to interpret laws and apply them to ever changing circumstances.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the Roosevelt argument, but I will clarify that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies when applied universally. Certainly, things can go downhill. That doesn't mean that they WILL go downhill. Correlation is not causation.

Article [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.

You don't understand my point about the Roosevelt administration? We didn't have the problems that we have now until Mr. Four Term Wastrel managed to pack the Supreme Court given that he had from 1933 until 1945 to do it. Having a full court of leftists is how we got such travesties as the Wickard v. Filburn decision determining that the Interstate Commerce Clause gave the federal government authority over anything that could even tangentially affect interstate commerce even if it never left the farm where it was produced. This is but one example. You completely failed with your suggestion about correlation and causation given that this moment of completely packing the court is a direct cause of many of the ills we now have in terms of violation of the Constitution. What do you mean that things can go downhill but it doesn't mean that the will go downhill? Things are going downhill in most every regard right in front of us.

Oh, and the business of interpretation is to settle disputes about matters not clearly established and to make circumstantial behavior fit the Constitution, not the other way around. You apparently do not believe an any principles of a non-circumstantial nature.

 

[Sharpie]

Things are going downhill in most every regard right in front of us.

I disagree, but if this is your worldview, then we probably don't have much to discuss in a constructive manner. I will let you have the final word. Good day.

 

[Denny347]

Hmmmm. We should not judge gun owners by what they wear, you know, legally OCing with a CCW badge. If they want to look like a tool, it's all good. We should not judge black rifles because they look evil...they LOOK like military weapons. But it's 100% ok to judge LEO's by the clothes they wear? Gotcha. That camo is SCARY!!!!!!...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[Destro]

Oh, and the business of interpretation is to settle disputes about matters not clearly established and to make circumstantial behavior fit the Constitution, not the other way around. You apparently do not believe an any principles of a non-circumstantial nature.

serious question, if the 4th ammendment was repealed, support law enforcement searching everybody and anybody at anytime?

 

[IndyDave1776]

serious question, if the 4th ammendment was repealed, support law enforcement searching everybody and anybody at anytime?

Would I support it? The answer isn't 'no' but 'Hell no!'

 

[jbombelli]

serious question, if the 4th ammendment was repealed, support law enforcement searching everybody and anybody at anytime?

The 4th Amendment doesn't GRANT the right. It merely acknowledges it. So I personally wouldn't support that.

Would you?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I disagree, but if this is your worldview, then we probably don't have much to discuss in a constructive manner. I will let you have the final word. Good day.

So far as I am concerned, the last word as an end in itself is meaningless. As for my worldview, compare the nation as we know it to the nation as it was in generations past.

1. Exercise of constitutional rights was under most circumstances not infringed, particularly regarding the Bill of Rights. This did not cause the sky falling scenarios we are told would result if we were left in actual possession of our rights, which are properly ours.

2. We had a robust and growing economy in which a person could use and develop his talents as he was able. While still technically possible, a bewildering array of regulations, a byzantine tax code, and liability issues in which even the most stupid of people can sue the productive to collect on their own stupidity make it anywhere from improbable to impossible.

3. In the past, it was a safe rule of thumb that if you paid your taxes and lived by the Ten Commandments, there was no need to be concerned about the law. Now, we have to worry about predatory law enforcement, especially in the event that there is anything of value to be confiscated/stolen.

4. In the past, we had a solvent government which, prior to the FD Roosevelt administration, largely limited itself to performing the duties delegated to it by the Constitution. Today, we have a bloated, insolvent government with its nose into everything, Constitution notwithstanding.

5. While this is really a restatement of points 1 and 2, in generations past we were free to exercise our rights without any official permission to do so--which is a critical distinction between a right and a privilege. Exercising a right does NOT require permission.