Ron Paul: Police Manhunt For Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects, Scarier Than Attack

[BlindBoo]

The simple fact is that this happened because it could happen. The fact that this was thrown out as terrorism and blown completely out of proportion meant that the government could do this because the people would go along with it. Never mind the fact that this was a single criminal who was on everybody's radar and showed that he wasn't looking to kill people unnecessarily, as opposed to, say, a mysterious and unknown serial killer.

They could do it, so they did it. Eventually they're hoping it will become normalized and they'll be able to do it more often.

It has been normalized. USA!! USA!!
Chanted teh crowd as the police captured the suspect after a citizen tipped them off.

People love the state and there is no going back. Citizens will gladly give up every single last right they have in the name of security these days, and with history as any indicator (which, it most certainly is) we know exactly where this leads.

Obviously you don't remember the crowd gathered at Garretts Farm Chanting "USA, USA...." back on April 26th 1865.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Um, the lockdown was voluntary. You could go out if you wanted to. No one wanted to, naturally.
Ron Paul fail.

 

[Defiant1]

It's such poor, low ball stuff to mock a city for cheering the authorities for capturing a guy who just blew 200 peoples limbs off.

Seriously, if you're that deeply involved in this whole "we're so overly oppressed" business as much as you portray online, then WHAT THE **** ARE YOU DOING DAILY ONLINE?

Let's talk about principles. Let's talk about bending over and taking it. The guys who really believe this cynical oppressive the "state is going to become a military dictatorship" bullshit are the real pussies we should all be after.

Why?

Because they ACTUALLY BELIEVE we're being oppressed. And they don't do shit but grovel. No standards for standing for what they believe.

Listen, we can all get along here.

People are just a tad bit concerned about the forcing of folks out of their home, the lockdown, the overt police aggressiveness (as seen through videos, ect) over one guy who may or may not be the bomber (and may or may not be armed).

You're saying that none of those concerns are valid? How many rights - as a group - are we willing to give up over 1 person's criminal actions?


.

no rights were given up.

imo, the searches were within the law.

also, the lockdown was voluntary, and I know that fact beyond the shadow of a doubt. There are also hundreds of videos of people outside all over during the supposed forced lockdown, even interacting with police. So to continue to lie and state that there was a forced lockdown is not an advancement of the conversation, it's adrift into wasting of time.




Most of the time when people say their "rights are being given up," they're just being prisses.

When the laws were written, they were written so that officers could not occupy or destroy homes and bully the citizens with no cause or justification.

When the law is hunting a guy who let off bombs in your city and then youre acting like a house to house search is somehow in violation of the spirit of liberty or making such stretches as that, you're being a priss. the law wasn't intended for prisses to snub their noses at authority, it was made so that authorities couldn't unreasonably oppress people.

REAL OPPRESSION, not temporary inconvenience because FREAKIN BOMBER is within a mile of your house.

time to grow up about shit like this.

Those who would give up essential liberty in order to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin

 

[KevinWestern]

When the law is hunting a guy who let off bombs in your city and then youre acting like a house to house search is somehow in violation of the spirit of liberty or making such stretches as that, you're being a priss. the law wasn't intended for prisses to snub their noses at authority, it was made so that authorities couldn't unreasonably oppress people.

REAL OPPRESSION, not temporary inconvenience because FREAKIN BOMBER is within a mile of your house.

time to grow up about shit like this.

I think you’re passing judgment on the concerned way too hastily. Let me try to explain to you a few things.

Since 9/11 I think we’ve seen a growing acceptance (by the general population) that the police/gov’t can do virtually anything “in the name of safety”. They can hack into our email addresses, they can search our homes without warrant, they can perpetuate the lockdown of an entire city over a single suspect, ect. Yes, this in theory can stop terrorist attacks but it also makes us extremely vulnerable to potential overreaches in power. It’s a slippery slope.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up that Federal building in Oklahoma, and killed nearly 6 times the amount of people, was that town turned into a militarized zone as police searched home to home? No, it wasn’t, and that’s because I think our gov’t and law officials at the time had a slightly different approach to policework.

Whether or not the police used excessive force in this case – I suppose – is debatable to a degree; however, what you can’t deny is that our rights as citizens have been compressing since 9/11, and naturally people are concerned.

When they see images of giant tanks and men in fully military gear pointing guns at people who clearly aren’t the suspect – people (again) become concerned. We must be careful with the precedents that we set.






.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"people were lining the streets cheering the state!"

"people were forced to stay in their homes"


snarf

Yes, because they're clearly saying those two events happened at the same time, right?

Well - yes, they are.

Uhh no, they're not.

 

[BlindBoo]

Damn, what a golden opportunity Obama waisted. He could have used the undeclared temporary martial law situation in a Boston suburb and applied it to the entire country. Filling up those dent.....um re-location camps, with the other half the country ........

Or not.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's such poor, low ball stuff to mock a city for cheering the authorities for capturing a guy who just blew 200 peoples limbs off.

Seriously, if you're that deeply involved in this whole "we're so overly oppressed" business as much as you portray online, then WHAT THE **** ARE YOU DOING DAILY ONLINE?

Let's talk about principles. Let's talk about bending over and taking it. The guys who really believe this cynical oppressive the "state is going to become a military dictatorship" bullshit are the real pussies we should all be after.

Why?

Because they ACTUALLY BELIEVE we're being oppressed. And they don't do shit but grovel. No standards for standing for what they believe.

Listen, we can all get along here.

People are just a tad bit concerned about the forcing of folks out of their home, the lockdown, the overt police aggressiveness (as seen through videos, ect) over one guy who may or may not be the bomber (and may or may not be armed).

You're saying that none of those concerns are valid? How many rights - as a group - are we willing to give up over 1 person's criminal actions?


.

All of them.

 

[KevinWestern]

Damn, what a golden opportunity Obama waisted. He could have used the undeclared temporary martial law situation in a Boston suburb and applied it to the entire country. Filling up those dent.....um re-location camps, with the other half the country ........

Or not.

You don’t have to be mocking. We’re (most of us) are trying to have a serious discussion here, and there are some vaild points being brought up about a growing occurance of police/gov’t overreach (ie spying on phone conversations/email, city-wide lockdowns over one suspect, forcing non-criminals out of their home at gunpoint, ect).

Obviously there are those who exaggerate this concern to the utmost extreme, but to dismiss the fact (mockingly) that we are being increasingly surveilled and increasingly forced to give up our right to privacy, ect, in the name of “safety” tells me that you are not taking time to study THE TREND, and to study other societies (in the past and present) who do not enjoy these same rights.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look at the vid. Law abiding citizens ordered from their homes with their hands up, barked at by gun wielding LEOs, who in some cases were also pointing their guns directly at other citizens for no reason.
You point a gun at me you'd best be prepared to use it.

I like to think this kind of thing wouldn't happen in freer areas of this country. I'd probably have gotten shot during that incident, telling the officers I had searched teh house and no, there was no reason for them to come in.

 

[Defiant1]

Look at the vid. Law abiding citizens ordered from their homes with their hands up, barked at by gun wielding LEOs, who in some cases were also pointing their guns directly at other citizens for no reason.
You point a gun at me you'd best be prepared to use it.

I like to think this kind of thing wouldn't happen in freer areas of this country. I'd probably have gotten shot during that incident, telling the officers I had searched teh house and no, there was no reason for them to come in.

If you watch the video closely you will notice the people from the house are also "patted down". Sometimes twice.

Did they think they were the 19 yr. old terrorist?

 

[BlindBoo]

Damn, what a golden opportunity Obama waisted. He could have used the undeclared temporary martial law situation in a Boston suburb and applied it to the entire country. Filling up those dent.....um re-location camps, with the other half the country ........

Or not.

You don’t have to be mocking. We’re (most of us) are trying to have a serious discussion here, and there are some vaild points being brought up about a growing occurance of police/gov’t overreach (ie spying on phone conversations/email, city-wide lockdowns over one suspect, forcing non-criminals out of their home at gunpoint, ect).

Obviously there are those who exaggerate this concern to the utmost extreme, but to dismiss the fact (mockingly) that we are being increasingly surveilled and increasingly forced to give up our right to privacy, ect, in the name of “safety” tells me that you are not taking time to study THE TREND, and to study other societies (in the past and present) who do not enjoy these same rights.

.

I'll mock Ron Paul's play on fears of the feds all day long thank you very much. The war on Drugs has cost us so much more in terms of freedom than the episode in Boston. That Paul uses this in such a manner is deserving of mockery. IMO.

 

[The Rabbi]

Damn, what a golden opportunity Obama waisted. He could have used the undeclared temporary martial law situation in a Boston suburb and applied it to the entire country. Filling up those dent.....um re-location camps, with the other half the country ........

Or not.

You don’t have to be mocking. We’re (most of us) are trying to have a serious discussion here, and there are some vaild points being brought up about a growing occurance of police/gov’t overreach (ie spying on phone conversations/email, city-wide lockdowns over one suspect, forcing non-criminals out of their home at gunpoint, ect).

Obviously there are those who exaggerate this concern to the utmost extreme, but to dismiss the fact (mockingly) that we are being increasingly surveilled and increasingly forced to give up our right to privacy, ect, in the name of “safety” tells me that you are not taking time to study THE TREND, and to study other societies (in the past and present) who do not enjoy these same rights.

.

I'll mock Ron Paul's play on fears of the feds all day long thank you very much. The war on Drugs has cost us so much more in terms of freedom than the episode in Boston. That Paul uses this in such a manner is deserving of mockery. IMO.

Just because X is worse than Y doesn't mean Y doesn't deserve censure.
Paul has spoken out about the WoD as well, of course. Most people here know how I feel about Ron Paul. But he is absolutely right and I'm glad he brought this to public eye for discussion.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'll mock Ron Paul's play on fears of the feds all day long thank you very much. The war on Drugs has cost us so much more in terms of freedom than the episode in Boston. That Paul uses this in such a manner is deserving of mockery. IMO.

I’m confused.

Hasn't Ron Paul been a huge, outspoken opponent to the war on drugs for years? It's pretty reasonable for someone to be against two things at the same time - especially when they fall into similar categories...

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll mock Ron Paul's play on fears of the feds all day long thank you very much. The war on Drugs has cost us so much more in terms of freedom than the episode in Boston. That Paul uses this in such a manner is deserving of mockery. IMO.

I’m confused.

Hasn't Ron Paul been a huge, outspoken opponent to the war on drugs for years? It's pretty reasonable for someone to be against two things at the same time - especially when they fall into similar categories...

.

Yeah, and the War on Drugs may or may not be worse than this now, but if this becomes the new normal, not to mention inevitable escalation, then this can certainly be looked at as a pivotal moment for the police state. That an entire major city can be shut down, whether it was coerced or not, for the capture of a single suspect is a dangerous precedent.

 

[KevinWestern]

Yeah, and the War on Drugs may or may not be worse than this now, but if this becomes the new normal, not to mention inevitable escalation, then this can certainly be looked at as a pivotal moment for the police state. That an entire major city can be shut down, whether it was coerced or not, for the capture of a single suspect is a dangerous precedent.

Yeah, and I don’t want to get to off the beaten path (I’m not a conspiracy guy) but I have just a few questions about the handling of this case.

Here's my point of view...

At least one of the brothers was on an FBI/CIA watchlist for the past 5 years. It is confirmed that they have made contact with him at some point in the past. So, with that given, one would logically think that once the FBI had their key suspects via photographs that INSTEAD of making this nationwide plea to the public to identify 'these guys', they would first say:

“hey, are there any suspects in the Boston area that we interviewed in the past 5 years that might fit this man’s visual image”?

From there, the FBI can go arrest these guys by staking out the house with a single SWAT team, ect, and avoid having to exercise a military drill over the whole of Boston. Why would they broadcast to the brothers over national news that "these are the suspects!" and give them ample time to escape, ect? Maybe I'm missing something here, but those are just my thoughts.

(I realize I’m getting off topic).

.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'll mock Ron Paul's play on fears of the feds all day long thank you very much. The war on Drugs has cost us so much more in terms of freedom than the episode in Boston. That Paul uses this in such a manner is deserving of mockery. IMO.

I’m confused.

Hasn't Ron Paul been a huge, outspoken opponent to the war on drugs for years? It's pretty reasonable for someone to be against two things at the same time - especially when they fall into similar categories...

.

Hypebola like "military-style occupation of an American city", “military coup", “Force lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks" reminds me of the nutters who claim the President is going to declare martial law and imprison all the good Republicans Teabag types. Ron's hyperbola has not helped end the WoD either.

When in fact it was a temporary undeclared martial law in the manhunt/capture of one of the folks who bombed the Marathon. Who had within hours killed a policeman in cold blood, and had thrown homemade bombs at the police during the chase.

 

[paulitician]

Yeah, and the War on Drugs may or may not be worse than this now, but if this becomes the new normal, not to mention inevitable escalation, then this can certainly be looked at as a pivotal moment for the police state. That an entire major city can be shut down, whether it was coerced or not, for the capture of a single suspect is a dangerous precedent.

Yeah, and I don’t want to get to off the beaten path (I’m not a conspiracy guy) but I have just a few questions about the handling of this case.

Here's my point of view...

At least one of the brothers was on an FBI/CIA watchlist for the past 5 years. It is confirmed that they have made contact with him at some point in the past. So, with that given, pne would logically think that once the FBI had their key suspects via photographs that INSTEAD of making this nationwide plea to the public to identify 'these guys', they would first say:

“hey, are there any suspects in the Boston area that we interviewed in the past 5 years that might fit this man’s visual image”?

From there, the FBI can go arrest these guys by staking out the house with a single SWAT team, ect, and avoid having to exercise a military drill over the whole of Boston. Maybe I'm missing something here, but those are just my thoughts.

(I realize I’m getting off topic).

.

The Media will not pursue the possible Government-involvement angle. They've already received their script. And now they'll dutifully read from it. As the days go by, you'll hear less & less about the FBI being well-aware of these guys. It will eventually no longer be mentioned at all. Personally, I feel it could be another horribly botched Government operation. Much like the Fast & Furious debacle. But who knows? We'll never know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll mock Ron Paul's play on fears of the feds all day long thank you very much. The war on Drugs has cost us so much more in terms of freedom than the episode in Boston. That Paul uses this in such a manner is deserving of mockery. IMO.

I’m confused.

Hasn't Ron Paul been a huge, outspoken opponent to the war on drugs for years? It's pretty reasonable for someone to be against two things at the same time - especially when they fall into similar categories...

.

Hypebola like "military-style occupation of an American city", “military coup", “Force lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks" reminds me of the nutters who claim the President is going to declare martial law and imprison all the good Republicans Teabag types. Ron's hyperbola has not helped end the WoD either.

When in fact it was a temporary undeclared martial law in the manhunt/capture of one of the folks who bombed the Marathon. Who had within hours killed a policeman in cold blood, and had thrown homemade bombs at the police during the chase.

Saying it was a military-style occupation of an American city, and that there were militarized police in tanks is not hyperbole. It's an apt description.

But is this acceptable then? Shutting down cities to capture a suspect? Next time there's a serial killer on the loose should Los Angeles shut down while the police ride tanks around looking for them? What about a just a regular run of the mill murderer?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I didn't see not a single right forfeited during what happened in Boston. Not one.

Then you are blind. They searched houses, they shoved machine guns in the faces of innocent people and terrorized them. It was something out of a third-world banana republic. Every officer involved in that travesty should be shot for treason.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I think you need to do a bit of research and actually read the case law you spouted about. Then you may have the ability to speak on this subject and not look like a total boob.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.


And of course, if the suspect was somewhere within the radius then there's no reasonable suspicion that he's in your house.....n'aw, none at all not with 5 thousand people on a manhunt for close to 24 hours and not finding him yet.

Do you believe the police have sufficient evidence to conclude that all of the folks who were removed from their home at gunpoint - a rather traumatizing situation - were "armed and dangerous" and linked to the crime in a way that warranted those actions?

Of course not...he's just a closet authoritarian who is now out of the closet. He is a larger threat the American freedom than Speedbump and Dry-Dock could ever have hoped to be.