Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Boilk]

Given a free hand, and assuming you were responsible for law enforcement in the town in question, how would
you have tackled the problem?

So your version of "law enforcement" involves violations of the US Constitution (I thought observance of that was the law?), effectively imprisoning a town in their own homes, forcing businesses to close, and holding all residents within a 20-block distance at gunpoint and having them frisked. I wasn't aware that people can hide a 17 year-old teenager in their back pocket or up their T-shirt.

I take it that if there's an alleged bomber on the run in your town, you don't mind yourself and your family being screamed at, held and searched with multiple guns trained on you and your children? Shame on you Russ_H if you think this is "law enforcement" - it is quite literally terrorism.

[scottycelt]

So your version of "law enforcement" involves violations of the US Constitution (I thought observance of that was the law?), effectively imprisoning a town in their own homes, forcing businesses to close, and holding all residents within a 20-block distance at gunpoint and having them frisked. I wasn't aware that people can hide a 17 year-old teenager in their back pocket or up their T-shirt.

I take it that if there's an alleged bomber on the run in your town, you don't mind yourself and your family being screamed at, held and searched with multiple guns trained on you and your children? Shame on you Russ_H if you think this is "law enforcement" - it is quite literally terrorism.

Yes, we know Russ_H should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for asking a simple question, but maybe you could have answered it, anyway?.

Maybe my TV screen was lying but what I saw were locals taking to the streets and thanking/cheering the police for their action. I didn't see any demos against the police, though the operation would undoubtedly have been a very unpleasant experience for those citizens involved. I'm sure the world's media wouldn't have missed any anti-police sentiment or counter-demo.

Whilst it may have seemed a bit OTT to us on the other side of the Atlantic the locals themselves appeared to support the action as a necessary "evil". In the end, it is their opinion that matters not ours.

[Richard Barrett]

the locals themselves appeared to support the action as a necessary "evil"

That indeed would be the frightening part, if it were true. Perhaps it is, but if so that would be testimony of the acquiescence of those people in a gross violation of their constitutional rights.

[Pabmusic]

...Whilst it may have seemed a bit OTT to us on the other side of the Atlantic the locals themselves appeared to support the action as a necessary "evil". In the end, it is their opinion that matters not ours.

Maybe they were just relieved it was all over, including the violations of the US Constitution.

[Boilk]

Yes, we know Russ_H should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for asking a simple question, but maybe you could have answered it, anyway?.

The simple answer is that you do what you can WITHIN the remit of the law.

You do not "enforce law" by breaking existing laws
You do not fight bomb terorrism by invoking terrorism at gunpoint.

Maybe my TV screen was lying...

:laugh::laugh: ... ha, ha, you're SO funny Scottycelt, ever thought of doing stand-up?

... but what I saw were locals taking to the streets and thanking/cheering the police for their action. I didn't see any demos against the police, though the operation would undoubtedly have been a very unpleasant experience for those citizens involved. I'm sure the world's media wouldn't have missed any anti-police sentiment or counter-demo.

You clearly only watch mainstream (i.e. corporate and government-friendly) media ... which includes the BBC by the way. So if you saw a bunch of North Koereans cheering Kim Jong Un that would mean every single person in N. Korea was happy with their government?

FYI: non-mainstream media (TV and blogs) had footage and interviews with outraged objectors to the police state antics we witnessed. But as they say, people who watch only mainstream media can sometimes have a more distorted perception of the facts than even those who watch no media.

[Mr Pee]

The simple answer is that you do what you can WITHIN the remit of the law.

You do not "enforce law" by breaking existing laws
You do not fight bomb terorrism by invoking terrorism at gunpoint.



:laugh::laugh: ... ha, ha, you're SO funny Scottycelt, ever thought of doing stand-up?



You clearly only watch mainstream (i.e. corporate and government-friendly) media ... which includes the BBC by the way. So if you saw a bunch of North Koereans cheering Kim Jong Un that would mean every single person in N. Korea was happy with their government?

FYI: non-mainstream media (TV and blogs) had footage and interviews with outraged objectors to the police state antics we witnessed. But as they say, people who watch only mainstream media can sometimes have a more distorted perception of the facts than even those who watch no media.

Boik, I responded to your post last night in considerable anger, and my response was quite righly modded. How you can compare the actions of the US police on attempting to apprehend this "teenager" as you call him- although I think the correct term would be "armed terrorist" -to the Nazi regime is insulting to the police and FBI who risked their lives in the operation and is also insulting to those who lived through Nazism.

Your entire post is so misguided and ridiculous that it hardly merits a response, to be honest, but when you imply that the residents of Watertown were victims of terrorism then you truly do step into the realms of fantasy. The victims of terrorism were those who were maimed and killed in Boston, and the police officers who were killled and injured as they sought out the perpetrators.

I have no idea what planet you are on that you can post such nonsense.

Anyway, whilst often enjoy reading posts from people I disagree with, in your case it goes way beyond that and actually makes me extremely angry.

To avoid such stress and having to read any similar misguided fantasy from you in the future, I am going to put you on ignore.

[eighthobstruction]

Good for you Boilk for being so well informed....I for one am interested in your information and opinion....BUT, do you think you could tell us about it in a slightly less angry tone?....people merely asked a couple of questions....they did not set about an assault....

ED....I may well have crossed with Mr Pee....you may have seen his modded post, and that is what set you off....

[Mr Pee]

Good for you Boilk for being so well informed....I for one am interested in your information and opinion....BUT, do you think you could tell us about it in a slightly less angry tone?....people merely asked a couple of questions....they did not set about an assault....

ED....I may well have crossed with Mr Pee....you may have seen his modded post, and that is what set you off....

I didn't post until about 12:30 am this morning. I hope Boik did see it, because it expressed my anger and disbelief that he could post such nonsense. I overstepped the mark with my language, which is why it was righly modded as I expected, and I regret that. I do not however regret the sentiments behind it, which I have expressed in slightly more measured terms above.

What I also find a little disturbing however is that it seems one or two people here can read his post and apparently agree.....scary, and more than a little depressing.:sadface:

[MrGongGong]

To avoid such stress and having to read any similar misguided fantasy from you in the future, I am going to put you on ignore.

:steam: Here we go again
You don't "ignore" people by telling them you are "ignoring" them
that is what some would term "passive aggressive"

What on earth is "misguided" about suggesting that you don't uphold the law by breaking it ?
When the police murdered Jean Charles De Menezes on the tube the fact that they got away with it encouraged really dangerous people to believe that they are in some kind of "war" with the state. Having a "war" on terrorism that is pursued by undertaking acts which in themselves would be considered acts of war or terrorism simply wont have any effect at all and will prolong any conflict. You don't have to be a historian to see how that has been the case time and time again.

When the British Army murdered innocent people on Bloody Sunday they gave legitimacy to those who would also use violence to achieve political ends.

[amateur51]

Yes, we know Russ_H should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for asking a simple question, but maybe you could have answered it, anyway?.

Maybe my TV screen was lying but what I saw were locals taking to the streets and thanking/cheering the police for their action. I didn't see any demos against the police, though the operation would undoubtedly have been a very unpleasant experience for those citizens involved. I'm sure the world's media wouldn't have missed any anti-police sentiment or counter-demo.

Whilst it may have seemed a bit OTT to us on the other side of the Atlantic the locals themselves appeared to support the action as a necessary "evil". In the end, it is their opinion that matters not ours.

Oh right scotty - after all, what happens in USA stays in USA right? It is never transferred over to other societies and cultures, right? :erm:

Plesase don't kick that bucket of sand, officer - it has scotty's head in it :steam:

[amateur51]

That indeed would be the frightening part, if it were true. Perhaps it is, but if so that would be testimony of the acquiescence of those people in a gross violation of their constitutional rights.

Is there perhaps an historical precedent here? :erm:

[eighthobstruction]

I didn't post until about 12:30 am this morning. I hope Boik did see it, because it expressed my anger and disbelief that he could post such nonsense. I overstepped the mark with my language, which is why it was righly modded as I expected, and I regret that. I do not however regret the sentiments behind it, which I have expressed in slightly more measured terms above.

What I also find a little disturbing however is that it seems one or two people here can read his post and apparently agree.....scary, and more than a little depressing.:sadface:

....I just see it as that different people post in different ways....some reach for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Daily Mail, Guardian as metaphors or analogies etc....it didn't change the fact that that video of the SWAT teams is interesting and poses interesting issues....(perhaps for some reason he was as angry as you were)....and perhaps as he says so were some Americans ....(people of colour perhaps, white underclasses)

[Richard Barrett]

you don't uphold the law by breaking it

This is the point, which Boilk made very clearly, and IMO without hyperbole - of course the situation in Germany in the 1940s was different in that the scenes described were more like a regular occurrence than in the USA now. But they started somewhere too, and gradually escalated over a number of years. And those like Mr P who did the 1930s equivalent of choosing "ignore" effectively helped the process along.

[ahinton]

This is a difficult one, to be sure - and it remains uncertain how the authorities could have handled the investigation and ultimate apprehension of the bomber without inconveniencing others and even possibly putting some of them at risk - but the police are professionals trained to do this kind of work and the precedent of seeking to enforce one law by wilfully breaking another is clearly dangerous at the very least and sends out all the wrong signals to the criminals of the future. In all democratic countries, the police are supposedly not only not above the law but also charged with enforcing it; the moment that the police do anything that identifies them as acting above the law, then the rule of law is undermined by those charged with enforcing it. Yes, of course it's a difficult job. So are plenty of others.

Intelligent, unbiased and sensitive appraisal of all of this kind of thing is not helped at all by the emotive use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism", especially when they are paraded as an excuse for police action that might not otherwise be acceptable to or tolerated by the public whom they serve. What, after all, IS a "terrorist"? Someone who instils fear into a community by way of threatened or actual acts of violence, perhaps - but then a serial killer would be a "terrorist" under such a definition. Usually, of course, it's used to denote a follower of "extremist" religious and/or political agendas, but the precise definition is by no means clear. The fact remains that someone who commits certain acts of atrocity in the name of a known organisation with a "terrorist" agenda is committing the same act as would be the case were he/she entirely unconnected with any such organisation and thereby breaking the same law; were that fact duly recognised by the authorities, the risk that police might assume the right to treat such criminals differently to the way that they treat "non-terrorist" ones wold not arise. Murder, maiming, mayhem and the rest are the same whoever commits them - and that includes the police.

[aeolium]

This is the point, which Boilk made very clearly, and IMO without hyperbole - of course the situation in Germany in the 1940s was different in that the scenes described were more like a regular occurrence than in the USA now.

Of course it's hyperbole, and completely wrong. The situation in Nazi Germany was completely different in every way. The Nazi police force, and security police, were unaccountable arms of the state and effectively not subject to the law. They could arrest, detain, torture and incarcerate in concentration camps any persons suspected of being political opponents, subjects of denunciations, Jews, gays, gypsies, etc without the latter having any recourse to law. The police in America are subject to the law, and if legal or constitutional rights have been violated as claimed then there is recourse to the law for any affected citizen. Also if any citizen had been injured or killed as a result of the police action there would have been disciplinary and almost certainly legal proceedings. The circumstances of the case were that those suspected of being involved in the terrorist incident had been pursued and in a confrontation one of them had been shot as well as a policeman. The other suspect who then fled was believed to be armed and possibly in possession of explosives. What sort of measures should the police have taken in this situation?

Though I am far from supportive of American foreign policy and much of its domestic policy (including the policy re Guantanamo) I find it depressing to see comparisons made with police forces in Nazi Germany, a totalitarian state. It really should be possible to tell the difference, and I can only put the failure down to an ideological hatred of America and an attitude towards the police which damns them whatever they do.