Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Serial_Apologist]

That's at least the second time on this thread that Nazi Germany has been mentioned. It's cheap, easy and completely irrelevant. :yawn:

You are clearly getting desperate.

Which is probably roughly what was being widely opined in England, ca. 1930

[remdataram]

Anyone would think it was all part of a plot to extend and maintain a state of apprehension regarding terror so far from our shores, remdataram, and to ease the passage of news about imprisonment of would-be terrorists amongst our own citizens.

We're all in this together.

Where's Shaw Taylor when you need 'im - "Remember! Keep 'em peeled!" :winkeye:

I totally agree with you! After all, that's why we're in Afghanistan.......

[scottycelt]

So, are you saying the US authorities had no choice but to act in the way they did that night in Boston? If so, then do you belive there are some circumstances in which it is permissible to suspend or circumvent people's civil or constitutional rights? Could you tell us which rights you would be prepared to sacrifice under the same circumstancces?

If there were a bomb-planting maniac in our neighbourhood and the police decided on 'lock-down' ... in other words all residents to have restricted movement and houses searched for the maniac before he killed others, maybe even myself ... I would be perfectly prepared to 'sacrifice' my normal rights until the operation was over. Of course in any emergency situations there have to be imposed restrictions whether it's terrorism or a water shortage.

From all reports, the huge majority of 'Boston' residents had very little problem in understanding that.

[ahinton]

That's at least the second time on this thread that Nazi Germany has been mentioned. It's cheap, easy and completely irrelevant. :yawn:

You are clearly getting desperate.

I very much doubt that he is! 1930/40s Germany is merely one illustration out of many possible ones of which no small number are far nearer to our own time and are also relevant; it is neither "cheap" nor "easy" to have to cite any of them, actually.

[ahinton]

If there were a bomb-planting maniac in our neighbourhood and the police decided on 'lock-down' ... in other words all residents to have restricted movement and houses searched for the maniac before he killed others, maybe even myself ... I would be perfectly prepared to 'sacrifice' my normal rights until the operation was over. Of course in any emergency situations there have to be imposed restrictions whether it's terrorism or a water shortage.

From all reports, the huge majority of 'Boston' residents had very little problem in understanding that.

But scotty, where - at least in your book - would that end? Threats of bombings as distinct from actual bombings? Mass murder? Or take 9/11, for example; any attempt to "lock down" NYC or even parts of it other than for the purposes of limited restriction of access for reasons of public safety would have done little meaningfully to address and respond to what happened, would it?

If we are to understand "terrorism" to include by definition the inculcation of ever-increasing public fear of actions against it - and if such responses as we're debating were to be given the green light in all cases irrespective of whether the consequences might include breaches of the law - would there not then be a very real and growing risk that increasingly draconian powers would mean that the police themselves would come to be regarded as "terrorists"? What material difference is there between fear of criminal bombers and other murderers and maimers and fear of unbridled police action? Anyone who believes that the police should be given - and expect to be granted - unlimited powers of lock-down, stop and search, arrest and imprisonment and the like must surely take a dim view of them, in the sense of a perception that the police would be incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities without recourse to such powers - which is pretty insulting to the police, in my view.

Once terrorists have contrived successfully to ensure that police respond to their actions and threats of actions as terrorists themselves, they'll consider themselves to have won an important victory.

[scottycelt]

Fortunately, I do not "have" your problem, in the sense of having "got" your problem (i.e. being personally afflicted by it), but I do recognise your problem even though I can see no sensible reason why you should have it; however, but then I knew that before your latest post.

No one is suggesting that the US government does "all the wrong things" without exception. On the contrary, what's been questioned here is whether all aspects of the authorities' responses to the Boston incident were appropriate and lawful and I do not see even you implying that addressing the breach of one law by breaching another constitutes acceptable conduct on the part of those funded by taxpayers and charged with upholding the law.

As I have already said (but presumably I was wasting my time in so doing), it does not necessarily take an expert in law, justice, policing et al to recognise certain breaches of the law for what they are, just as the absence of such expertise does not invalidate all opinions on such matters or presume that anyone with an opinion or concern should have to know exactly how all such matters should be handled. I don't want to have to say this again; there's nothing esoteric about it.

'Esoteric' or not, you wholly miss the point. I never mentioned the US government.

My post was itself an analogy to try and illustrate the point that I and others have been continually trying to make in the simplest possible terms.

Sadly, this appears to have fared no better than the previous attempts.

Still, those of us who have tried to make the point certainly can't be faulted for giving anything less than 100% effort in the course of our already rather daunting and now seemingly impossible task. :smiley:

[vinteuil]

... how many died in Boston? Three, I think.

Eighty five people die from guns in the United States - every day...

[DavidP]

If there were a bomb-planting maniac in our neighbourhood and the police decided on 'lock-down' ... in other words all residents to have restricted movement and houses searched for the maniac before he killed others, maybe even myself ... I would be perfectly prepared to 'sacrifice' my normal rights until the operation was over. Of course in any emergency situations there have to be imposed restrictions whether it's terrorism or a water shortage.

From all reports, the huge majority of 'Boston' residents had very little problem in understanding that.

Thank you for answering - courteous as ever, Scotty. Are there any other rights you would be prepared to sacrifice under similarly difficult circumstances?

[Nick Armstrong]

If there were a bomb-planting maniac in our neighbourhood and the police decided on 'lock-down' ... in other words all residents to have restricted movement and houses searched for the maniac before he killed others, maybe even myself ... I would be perfectly prepared to 'sacrifice' my normal rights until the operation was over. Of course in any emergency situations there have to be imposed restrictions whether it's terrorism or a water shortage.

I can't resist saying that the above seems to me to be self-evidently sensible and I couldn't agree more.

[ahinton]

'Esoteric' or not, you wholly miss the point. I never mentioned the US government.

I am well aware that you did not mention it by name but, in the specific context here, of which other government could you have been writing? In any case, I don't see that it materially affects your argument whether you were referring solely to the US government or to governments in general.

My post was itself an analogy to try and illustrate the point that I and others have been continually trying to make in the simplest possible terms.

And several of us have responded to it in equally clear and simple terms.

[scottycelt]

Thank you for answering - courteous as ever, Scotty. Are there any other rights you would be prepared to sacrifice under similarly difficult circumstances?

Have you possibly any other 'sacrificial rights' particularly in mind, DavidP ... ? :winkeye:

[Mr Pee]

Anyone would think it was all part of a plot to extend and maintain a state of apprehension regarding terror so far from our shores, remdataram, and to ease the passage of news about imprisonment of would-be terrorists amongst our own citizens.

I don't think "anyone" would think that. A minority of conspiracy theorists, possibly, but not any rational and reasonably sane individual.

[ahinton]

I don't think "anyone" would think that. A minority of conspiracy theorists, possibly, but not any rational and reasonably sane individual.

You appear remarkably confident in your assumption here, if I may say so, Mr Pee, but on what specific grounds? Plot or no plot, conspiracy theory or no conspiracy theory, do you not admit of any possibility that certain terrorist actions and threats thereof and certain kinds of responses thereto might between them start to give rise to and establish such a "state of apprehension" among the general public? It is surely worth remembering that not only governments but terrorists have agendas and it is far from impossible that the only ones that they might share centre around the inculcation of that "state of apprehension", however different their respective reasons for doing so might (or might not) be.

[DavidP]

Have you possibly any other 'sacrificial rights' particularly in mind, DavidP ... ? :winkeye:

Isn't that illegal? (And, besides which there's a shortage of sacrificial virgins hereabouts)

The danger with your argument though, Scotty, is that under the pressure of extreme events governments can be tempted to go too far in restricting or circumventing the freedoms of civilians. And, in fear, the public may support measures they wouldn't countenance under normal circumstances, e.g. the passing of Patriot Act into law after 9/11 in the US (Not to mention the undermining of the principle of Habeas corpus under the last government in this country) - all done in the name of the war on terror. After all, every dictator (And, to be clear, I'm not equating the current situation in the US to a dictatorship) says they are merely "temporarily" suspending people's freedoms. (For the people's own good, of course!)

[ahinton]

Isn't that illegal? (And, besides which there's a shortage of sacrificial virgins hereabouts)

The danger with your argument though, Scotty, is that under the pressure of extreme events governments can be tempted to go too far in restricting or circumventing the freedoms of civilians. And, in fear, the public may support measures they wouldn't countenance under normal circumstances, e.g. the passing of Patriot Act into law after 9/11 in the US (Not to mention the undermining of the principle of Habeas corpus under the last government in this country) - all done in the name of the war on terror. After all, every dictator (And, to be clear, I'm not equating the current situation in the US to a dictatorship) says they are merely "temporarily" suspending people's freedoms. (For the people's own good, of course!)

Quite. By a similar token, income tax was first introduced in Britain as a "temporary" measure...