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

[francoHFW]

What a pile of Pubcrappe, for hater dupes only. No matter what happens, you're against it. Tanks my ass lol.

 

[francoHFW]

The only danger is the ignorant loudmouth paranoid fools that believe this paranoia. The RW hater dupes who supported the actual Nazis. Luckily, in THIS country you're just the idots and cowards destroying the GOP. By the time your reps satisfy you, they can't get elected. LOL

 

[Londoner]

Former Rep. Ron Paul said the law enforcement that swarmed around Boston in the days following the marathon bombings was scarier than the actual terrorist attack.

“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” he said on the Lew Rockwell website, Politico reported. “This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.”

The terror attacks on April 15 in Boston killed three and injured 264.

Mr. Paul, a former libertarian political candidate who served in Congress as a member of the Republican Party, said the door-to-door searches police conducted in Watertown for the bombing suspects were particularly alarming.

They reminded of a “military coup in a far off banana republic,” he said, Politico reported. “Force lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.”

Mr. Paul reminded the surviving suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was ultimately discovered by a civilian, and not due to police crackdown, Politico reported.

“He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police,” he said. “And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.”


Read more: Ron Paul: Police manhunt for Boston Marathon bombing suspect scarier than attack - Washington Times

I got 90% of my criticism of the Patriot Act and War on Terror from Ron Paul. [This is why I like being on the Left, because I'm allowed to get my information from the other side when necessary]

I attended a speech of Ron Paul's in 2005. He basically said this:

We live in a world with evil.

We live in a world with risk.

We live in a world where 40,000 people a year die in car accidents.

We live in a world where, on most years, more people die in the USA from lightning strikes than terrorism.

So why are we building a big-government-police-state and letting Washington monitor our emails and phone calls... and why are we letting Washington start questionable wars and spend trillions of dollars for such a minimal risk? The price of freedom is that evil people will occasionally do bad things. Life is unfair. Life is dangerous. But freedom is more valuable than safety.

Ron went on to say that many radical groups use terrorism in order to force a free society to become unfree - which, as he pointed out, is exactly what Bush did. Bush started illegally tapping the phones of American citizens, and collecting data on their purchases and internet activity. Ron Paul was very clear that the Patriot Act and War on Terrorism was a big government power grab that achieved little more than the destruction of privacy and freedom. (And let's not talk about the cost. Homeland Security is now the largest and most expensive bureaucracy in US History)

Ron Paul thinks free people can take their own risks and decide if they want to go in a skyscraper, fly in a plane, or leave their homes. Only in the Soviet Union did government use national security as an excuse to build a massive freedom-destroying surveillance bureaucracy. Bush followed the model of the Soviet Union to a "T". And his Fed used this surveillance bureaucracy to hunt political enemies. They used the Patriot Act to track Eliot Spitzer's finances when they should have been preventing Iraq from spiraling into a wasteful mess.

It would be great if government could "fix" evil, but, Paul said, we libertarians believe that if you give government the money and power to do these "Big Things", they will only make things worse.

Ron Paul understands the Law of unintended consequences. He understands that downside of making Washington big enough and powerful enough to police the globe.

Government can't run a laundromat on budget, so why did we trust the Bushies to rebuild the entire Middle East in our image?

Ron Paul basically taught me that Republicans in his party have more faith in the power of government than anyone on the Left.

This is why they won't let him near the presidency.

I just wish that the Talk Radio Republicans on this board understood how much power their party has given to government. I cannot believe how utterly and completely these people have been duped.

 

[OKTexas]

Former Rep. Ron Paul said the law enforcement that swarmed around Boston in the days following the marathon bombings was scarier than the actual terrorist attack.

“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” he said on the Lew Rockwell website, Politico reported. “This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.”

The terror attacks on April 15 in Boston killed three and injured 264.

Mr. Paul, a former libertarian political candidate who served in Congress as a member of the Republican Party, said the door-to-door searches police conducted in Watertown for the bombing suspects were particularly alarming.

They reminded of a “military coup in a far off banana republic,” he said, Politico reported. “Force lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.”

Mr. Paul reminded the surviving suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was ultimately discovered by a civilian, and not due to police crackdown, Politico reported.

“He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police,” he said. “And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.”


Read more: Ron Paul: Police manhunt for Boston Marathon bombing suspect scarier than attack - Washington Times

I got 90% of my criticism of the Patriot Act and War on Terror from Ron Paul. [This is why I like being on the Left, because I'm allowed to get my information from the other side when necessary]

I attended a speech of Ron Paul's in 2005. He basically said this:

We live in a world with evil.

We live in a world with risk.

We live in a world where 40,000 people a year die in car accidents.

We live in a world where, on most years, more people die in the USA from lightning strikes than terrorism.

So why are we building a big-government-police-state and letting Washington monitor our emails and phone calls... and why are we letting Washington start questionable wars and spend trillions of dollars for such a minimal risk? The price of freedom is that evil people will occasionally do bad things. Life is unfair. Life is dangerous. But freedom is more valuable than safety.

Ron went on to say that many radical groups use terrorism in order to force a free society to become unfree - which, as he pointed out, is exactly what Bush did. Bush started illegally tapping the phones of American citizens, and collecting data on their purchases and internet activity. Ron Paul was very clear that the Patriot Act and War on Terrorism was a big government power grab that achieved little more than the destruction of privacy and freedom. (And let's not talk about the cost. Homeland Security is now the largest and most expensive bureaucracy in US History)

Ron Paul thinks free people can take their own risks and decide if they want to go in a skyscraper, fly in a plane, or leave their homes. Only in the Soviet Union did government use national security as an excuse to build a massive freedom-destroying surveillance bureaucracy. Bush followed the model of the Soviet Union to a "T". And his Fed used this surveillance bureaucracy to hunt political enemies. They used the Patriot Act to track Eliot Spitzer's finances when they should have been preventing Iraq from spiraling into a wasteful mess.

It would be great if government could "fix" evil, but, Paul said, we libertarians believe that if you give government the money and power to do these "Big Things", they will only make things worse.

Ron Paul understands the Law of unintended consequences. He understands that downside of making Washington big enough and powerful enough to police the globe.

Government can't run a laundromat on budget, so why did we trust the Bushies to rebuild the entire Middle East in our image?

Ron Paul basically taught me that Republicans in his party have more faith in the power of government than anyone on the Left.

This is why they won't let him near the presidency.

I just wish that the Talk Radio Republicans on this board understood how much power their party has given to government. I cannot believe how utterly and completely these people have been duped.

I think you're forgetting that the dems reupped the patriot act twice, it falls on both parties.

 

[Londoner]

I agree.

I think the Democrats supported the central tenants of the War on Terrorism because they lack political courage. They're afraid of being accused of being weak on national defense. This stems from the sixties, anti-Vietnam, SDS, etc.

This is why I turn to Ron Paul and not the Democrats for criticism of the War on Terror.

Also, we kind of expect the Dems to give Washington more power, but we count on the Right to limit that power. IMO.

The Right played Obama like fiddle. Every time he moved against the structures Bush put in place, they ran to the microphone and accused him of being a Muslim Sympathizer. This is how free societies are shut down. This is how the Soviets did it. By intimidating the exercise of political expression.

The game is over.

9/11 gave the Bushies a context to change America as powerfully as FDR, who also created an ideological movement which ensnared the other side.

That's the problem with agencies and movements that capture Washington. They gain a life of their own, with a sub-culture of special interests and no-bid contracts and a howling horde of useful idiots.

 

[fyrenza]

tl/dnr

We discussed this in my family,
and patted ourselves on the backs for NOT living in any city, nor suburb,

but it could, and DOES, happen everywhere,

and the citizenry who stand up, and say no, get blasted to Kingdom Come.

It has happened, over and over,
and yet, no one seems too concerned.

 

[FA_Q2]

Warrantless searches with probable cause have always been legal in this country.
Amendment four.


We are at War with "terror" apparently. The Military are sworn to protect foreign and domestic. Let's see someone logically prove that this was somehow out of bounds or oppressive.

4Th Amendment
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.

Please point out where warrentless searches are allowed with probable cause. No hurry, I'll wait.

Case


Law

Bull

Shit

Whether or not it is strictly ‘legal’ according to case law is essentially irrelevant in a discussion about whether or not the government should have the power in the first place of that it is correct for them to have taken these action. Hiding behind case law without coming up with actual reasoning to back your thoughts up is disingenuous. Don’t tell me that you agree whole heartedly with every single case that the SCOTUS rules on. Are you completely comfortable with the citizens united ruling? Are you on board with Heller?

Just because the SCOTUS has ruled on a subject does not mean that we cannot disagree with it or argue that it was an incorrect decision. Even the court itself is not so naive or we would still have separate but ‘equal’ codified in law.

Lastly, you have still failed to show where there is even reasonable case law here to boot. To call the searches as falling under ‘reasonable’ suspicion is lunacy. Hundreds of homes and thousands of people and suddenly they can declare that they ALL are under ‘reasonable’ suspicion. Essentially, that logic allows them to declare anything reasonable. To say then that we have not lost our 4th amendment rights makes no sense.

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree.

I think the Democrats supported the central tenants of the War on Terrorism because they lack political courage. They're afraid of being accused of being weak on national defense. This stems from the sixties, anti-Vietnam, SDS, etc.
This is why I turn to Ron Paul and not the Democrats for criticism of the War on Terror.

Also, we kind of expect the Dems to give Washington more power, but we count on the Right to limit that power. IMO.

The Right played Obama like fiddle. Every time he moved against the structures Bush put in place, they ran to the microphone and accused him of being a Muslim Sympathizer. This is how free societies are shut down. This is how the Soviets did it.

The game is over.

2001 gave the Bushies a context to change America as powerfully as FDR, who also created an ideological movement and attendant policies which ensnared the other side.

That's the problem with agencies and movements that capture Washington. They gain a life of their own, with a sub-culture of special interests and no-bid contracts.

No. You are giving the democrats a half pass here, declaring that they are not against such things simply because of image.

They had the clout to repeal the patriot act. It had terrible popularity, they all RAN ON GETTING RID OF IT and it was one of the more effective sticks that they used to beat Bush over the head with. At least it was that way up until they expanded and reauthorized it.

Both parties are in the bag for increased power. They are damn near identical these days on everything but tax policy. Even in that area, there is little difference as they tinker with the tax details and leave the major tax problems in place. Face it, the dems crave the power as the republicans do.

 

[editec]

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

I suspect he'd feel somewhat differently if he'd been in the blast radius of those bombs.

 

[fyrenza]

Act as ruffled as you will :

YOU AREN"T DOING JACK SHIT TO STOP ANY OF IT.

None of us are,

and to our shame.

 

[G.T.]

4Th Amendment
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.

Please point out where warrentless searches are allowed with probable cause. No hurry, I'll wait.

Case


Law

Bull

Shit

Whether or not it is strictly ‘legal’ according to case law is essentially irrelevant in a discussion about whether or not the government should have the power in the first place of that it is correct for them to have taken these action. Hiding behind case law without coming up with actual reasoning to back your thoughts up is disingenuous. Don’t tell me that you agree whole heartedly with every single case that the SCOTUS rules on. Are you completely comfortable with the citizens united ruling? Are you on board with Heller?

Just because the SCOTUS has ruled on a subject does not mean that we cannot disagree with it or argue that it was an incorrect decision. Even the court itself is not so naive or we would still have separate but ‘equal’ codified in law.

Lastly, you have still failed to show where there is even reasonable case law here to boot. To call the searches as falling under ‘reasonable’ suspicion is lunacy. Hundreds of homes and thousands of people and suddenly they can declare that they ALL are under ‘reasonable’ suspicion. Essentially, that logic allows them to declare anything reasonable. To say then that we have not lost our 4th amendment rights makes no sense.

I call it absolutely reasonable.

5 thousand men were searching for one person within a sectioned off radius that he could not be outside of - so of course it's reasonable to assume he's hiding inside of one of the homes holding an innocent family hostage.

It's also the spirit of the law that people miss. The Law's real purpose is so that police can't unjustly occupy homes, willy nilly. This is hardly that. They looked, they left. They looked, they left. They didn't damage anything, they didn't remain and occupy and they didn't use excessive force except evidence of one youtube video out of thousands of people with cameras where the homeowners were escorted at gunpoint.............where no one knows the context of the gunpoint at all.

Being unsufferable prisses all of the time about rights violations that don't actually have merit and have produced no actionable harm is why it will always be in "tin foil hat" area.

It is my opinion that we are not oppressed. If I felt oppressed, I wouldn't be gloating about it on the internetz daily whining, I'd be fighting. And so would the millions of Americans that you guys call "boot lickers" or "authority worshippers" be fighting also, if there were actionable merits to your feelings of oppression.

It's not that we worship authority, it's that we don't feel violated.

It is those that actually feel violated - yet the only tangible thing they do about it is sit about the internet and preach anonymously in the comfort of their own homes, that are the cowards.

 

[FA_Q2]

Case


Law

Bull

Shit

Whether or not it is strictly ‘legal’ according to case law is essentially irrelevant in a discussion about whether or not the government should have the power in the first place of that it is correct for them to have taken these action. Hiding behind case law without coming up with actual reasoning to back your thoughts up is disingenuous. Don’t tell me that you agree whole heartedly with every single case that the SCOTUS rules on. Are you completely comfortable with the citizens united ruling? Are you on board with Heller?

Just because the SCOTUS has ruled on a subject does not mean that we cannot disagree with it or argue that it was an incorrect decision. Even the court itself is not so naive or we would still have separate but ‘equal’ codified in law.

Lastly, you have still failed to show where there is even reasonable case law here to boot. To call the searches as falling under ‘reasonable’ suspicion is lunacy. Hundreds of homes and thousands of people and suddenly they can declare that they ALL are under ‘reasonable’ suspicion. Essentially, that logic allows them to declare anything reasonable. To say then that we have not lost our 4th amendment rights makes no sense.

I call it absolutely reasonable.

5 thousand men were searching for one person within a sectioned off radius that he could not be outside of - so of course it's reasonable to assume he's hiding inside of one of the homes holding an innocent family hostage.

It's also the spirit of the law that people miss. The Law's real purpose is so that police can't unjustly occupy homes, willy nilly. This is hardly that. They looked, they left. They looked, they left. They didn't damage anything, they didn't remain and occupy and they didn't use excessive force except evidence of one youtube video out of thousands of people with cameras where the homeowners were escorted at gunpoint.............where no one knows the context of the gunpoint at all.

Being unsufferable prisses all of the time about rights violations that don't actually have merit and have produced no actionable harm is why it will always be in "tin foil hat" area.

It is my opinion that we are not oppressed. If I felt oppressed, I wouldn't be gloating about it on the internetz daily whining, I'd be fighting. And so would the millions of Americans that you guys call "boot lickers" or "authority worshippers" be fighting also, if there were actionable merits to your feelings of oppression.

It's not that we worship authority, it's that we don't feel violated.

It is those that actually feel violated - yet the only tangible thing they do about it is sit about the internet and preach anonymously in the comfort of their own homes, that are the cowards.

*sigh*

No. That is an asinine statement. You MUST understand that to go from one point (freedom) to the other point (totalitarianism) is a VERY LONG road. It does not happen overnight or in the blink of an eye. There is not one point where we all feel free and happy but suddenly we are all suppressed.

In that course, ONE STAGE of ‘resistance’ is writing your congressmen, coming on the internet and educating others through the sharing of ideas. If you do not think that we are losing our rights then you are indeed blind. The government IS doing things that were unthinkable 50 years ago. That is a fact. You can argue that some of those losses are needed BUT they are there. Do you deny such a basic reality?

It is those ‘insufferable prisses’ that keep those rights intact. They are the ones that fight while you sit back and enjoy what you have. Without them, the dissenting voice ALWAYS questioning government, you would not have freedoms. The government would take them away without the people keeping that watchful eye on them. It is the nature of the beast, the very reason that the founders set up the government in the manner that they did. They understood that, above all else, power seeks to increase itself. These are basic truths in human nature.

While you bitch and moan because people do not like to see ANY of their freedom slip away, you have failed to realize that it is the job of the people to do so to secure the freedoms that we do have.

 

[G.T.]

We're talking about two different people.

When a person gets pulled over for speeding and is a total dickwad to the Officer and acts like he's doing so as a cause of liberty, he's being a douche.

When the NDAA is protested, that's reasonable and does not fit into my above diatribe.

And I compare what happened in Boston, to which I'm very intimately familiar with every little intricate detail - with the sniveling little priss who gives the officer a hard time in the name of "liberty."

So forgive me if I don't agree, and actually find it detestable, that "rights protectors" are finding fault at how the city handled a Bomber situation. Especially since much of it is predicated on a lie: the "lockdown" was voluntary, not mandatory. The searches were very reasonable, and it would fly in the face of simple common sense *not* to have performed them. The little asshole could have been in one of the homes saddling a little 6 year old girl with a bomb. Finding him was an absolutely dire situation, and he was within an established radius and so the thorough search within said radius was obvious to protect innocent civilians.

 

[The Rabbi]

We're talking about two different people.

When a person gets pulled over for speeding and is a total dickwad to the Officer and acts like he's doing so as a cause of liberty, he's being a douche.

When the NDAA is protested, that's reasonable and does not fit into my above diatribe.

And I compare what happened in Boston, to which I'm very intimately familiar with every little intricate detail - with the sniveling little priss who gives the officer a hard time in the name of "liberty."

So forgive me if I don't agree, and actually find it detestable, that "rights protectors" are finding fault at how the city handled a Bomber situation. Especially since much of it is predicated on a lie: the "lockdown" was voluntary, not mandatory. The searches were very reasonable, and it would fly in the face of simple common sense *not* to have performed them. The little asshole could have been in one of the homes saddling a little 6 year old girl with a bomb. Finding him was an absolutely dire situation, and he was within an established radius and so the thorough search within said radius was obvious to protect innocent civilians.

If thats what happened you might be right. Instead we saw people pulled from their homes at gunpoint, guns pointed at people, people patted down, people made to walk with their hands up, barked at by policem etc etc. Nothing is reasonable about that.
A person pulled over can be a douche, but you know what? Douches have rights in our society. If the officer is wrong he is wrong. If he is exceeding constitutional authority he is wrong. It doesnt matter whether the motorist is a polite member of the ACLU or a working class scumbag with no manners.

 

[G.T.]

You saw how many videos of people pulled from their homes at gun-point, out of the thousands of homes searched?

What were the exact circumstances of the gunpoint? Were they being the prisses I'm talking about, and blatantly trying to resist the necessary search for a loose terrorist in the area? Do you know everything, to draw a conclusion?

If you were an Officer in a shootout with bombs and guns between two men, and one of the men was loose within a restricted area, would you not be vigilant and take each vantage point for possible shooting, like second story windows, very seriously?

Who's shoes do you have to imagine being in? A guy from Tennessee who's totally separated from the bombing and not living or policing inside the area where the bomber is at large? I'm sure it's hard for people to understand when they don't even offer a modicum of "benefit of the doubt" to people inside such a dire situation as a man on the loose in a rural neighborhood who is thought to have bombs and an intent to mass-kill.

It's so easy, from the sidelines.

 

[The Rabbi]

You saw how many videos of people pulled from their homes at gun-point, out of the thousands of homes searched?

What were the exact circumstances of the gunpoint? Were they being the prisses I'm talking about, and blatantly trying to resist the necessary search for a loose terrorist in the area? Do you know everything, to draw a conclusion?

If you were an Officer in a shootout with bombs and guns between two men, and one of the men was loose within a restricted area, would you not be vigilant and take each vantage point for possible shooting, like second story windows, very seriously?

Who's shoes do you have to imagine being in? A guy from Tennessee who's totally separated from the bombing and not living or policing inside the area where the bomber is at large? I'm sure it's hard for people to understand when they don't even offer a modicum of "benefit of the doubt" to people inside such a dire situation as a man on the loose in a rural neighborhood who is thought to have bombs and an intent to mass-kill.

It's so easy, from the sidelines.

How many people unjustly dragged out of their homes at gunpoint is acceptable to you?

 

[G.T.]

How many were unjustly dragged out at gunpoint?

All we have is one video, of thousands of cameras on thousands of people's phones in the area.

And, we don't know the circumstances of said gunpoint, to even call it unjust. That's using assumptive deduction, not being aware of the specific circumstance and speaking about it as though you are.

 

[KevinWestern]

How many were unjustly dragged out at gunpoint?

All we have is one video, of thousands of cameras on thousands of people's phones in the area.

And, we don't know the circumstances of said gunpoint, to even call it unjust. That's using assumptive deduction, not being aware of the specific circumstance and speaking about it as though you are.

GT - continuing this because I think you're an honest poster looking for a debate with some well thought out points. I think the video below sheds a bit more light on the forced entries by the police (and demonstrates that it was a bit more widespread than just “one or two homes&#8221. It appears (by this local broadcast) that the officers were literally going home to home, doing searches. I would estimate maybe 40+ houses (is that reasonable?).

Note that we discussed earlier that the lockdown resulted in the capture of the suspect. I’ve learned since that the suspect was captured sometime after the lockdown was called out, and the military force was dispersed (ie thanks to a tip from a private citizen).


Some call outs:

1:35 - man said police told him to "get out” at gunpoint when he answered the door
2:20 - homeowners forced to stay out of their home for 10+ hours

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Gb6i5DF9k]Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts - YouTube[/ame]

Anyways, hopefully this adds something.


.

 

[FA_Q2]

You saw how many videos of people pulled from their homes at gun-point, out of the thousands of homes searched?

What were the exact circumstances of the gunpoint? Were they being the prisses I'm talking about, and blatantly trying to resist the necessary search for a loose terrorist in the area? Do you know everything, to draw a conclusion?

If you were an Officer in a shootout with bombs and guns between two men, and one of the men was loose within a restricted area, would you not be vigilant and take each vantage point for possible shooting, like second story windows, very seriously?

Who's shoes do you have to imagine being in? A guy from Tennessee who's totally separated from the bombing and not living or policing inside the area where the bomber is at large? I'm sure it's hard for people to understand when they don't even offer a modicum of "benefit of the doubt" to people inside such a dire situation as a man on the loose in a rural neighborhood who is thought to have bombs and an intent to mass-kill.

It's so easy, from the sidelines.

The entire incident in the first place was unjustified.

I, since I can only speak for myself here, am not attacking this incident based on the one video that we have (now 2 it seems) but rather on the entire incident in the first place. You keep referring to the *one* video as if that was indicative of the larger picture. There is a clear problem when we have MILITARY (not the police but MILITARY) involved in a criminal pursuit. When we quarantine an entire area of a city and demand that they search homes without warrants. That is unacceptable to me. This entire incident is a clear case of a complete overreaction because of this asinine fear of terrorism that we have allowed to fester in this country and it highlights how complacent of a society we have become to the powers that be every time that we are exposed to some errant terrorists plots.

What scares me most of all is that there are people such as yourself that are attacking those that raise the bullshit flag when this type of stuff happens. I should not see military on the streets of an American city unless they are simply traveling somewhere. I should not see them engaged in any kind of anti-criminal activity unless there is something on the scale of the LA riots going on (aka. Thousands of citizens have gone crazy). That is not the military’s purpose. Nor will I ever accept that the new ‘reasonable’ search and seizure includes thousands of people whenever the government damn well decides it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You saw how many videos of people pulled from their homes at gun-point, out of the thousands of homes searched?

What were the exact circumstances of the gunpoint? Were they being the prisses I'm talking about, and blatantly trying to resist the necessary search for a loose terrorist in the area? Do you know everything, to draw a conclusion?

If you were an Officer in a shootout with bombs and guns between two men, and one of the men was loose within a restricted area, would you not be vigilant and take each vantage point for possible shooting, like second story windows, very seriously?

Who's shoes do you have to imagine being in? A guy from Tennessee who's totally separated from the bombing and not living or policing inside the area where the bomber is at large? I'm sure it's hard for people to understand when they don't even offer a modicum of "benefit of the doubt" to people inside such a dire situation as a man on the loose in a rural neighborhood who is thought to have bombs and an intent to mass-kill.

It's so easy, from the sidelines.

The entire incident in the first place was unjustified.

I, since I can only speak for myself here, am not attacking this incident based on the one video that we have (now 2 it seems) but rather on the entire incident in the first place. You keep referring to the *one* video as if that was indicative of the larger picture. There is a clear problem when we have MILITARY (not the police but MILITARY) involved in a criminal pursuit. When we quarantine an entire area of a city and demand that they search homes without warrants. That is unacceptable to me. This entire incident is a clear case of a complete overreaction because of this asinine fear of terrorism that we have allowed to fester in this country and it highlights how complacent of a society we have become to the powers that be every time that we are exposed to some errant terrorists plots.

What scares me most of all is that there are people such as yourself that are attacking those that raise the bullshit flag when this type of stuff happens. I should not see military on the streets of an American city unless they are simply traveling somewhere. I should not see them engaged in any kind of anti-criminal activity unless there is something on the scale of the LA riots going on (aka. Thousands of citizens have gone crazy). That is not the military’s purpose. Nor will I ever accept that the new ‘reasonable’ search and seizure includes thousands of people whenever the government damn well decides it.

Isnt using the military for policing a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?