Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[scottycelt]

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!)

I'll have to take your word for your first point ...

I understand the dangers, David, but I think it's fair to say that the existence of urban terrorism means we are almost in a "semi-war" situation. In a full-scale war, of course, we lose even more freedoms. There is hardly anything more of a loss of liberty (and possibly life) than military conscription, for example. Yet, in order to be prepared to fight tyranny, democracies may well consider such to be a necessary evil, even in peacetime.

The Boston episode was a clear 'emergency' situation where the normal "rules' were understandably temporarily suspended. Personally, if I were an American, I'd be much more concerned about the current gun laws and the atrocities committed by lone citizens, the latter made much easier by 'the right to bear arms', and that 'right' still stoutly defended by many in the name of individual freedom!

[Sir Velo]

This "right to bear arms" is a bit of an urban myth. In 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

[ahinton]

I think it's fair to say that the existence of urban terrorism means we are almost in a "semi-war" situation. In a full-scale war, of course, we lose even more freedoms. There is hardly anything more of a loss of liberty (and possibly life) than military conscription, for example. Yet, in order to be prepared to fight tyranny, democracies may well consider such to be a necessary evil, even in peacetime.

Were you right to think it "fair to say that the existence of urban terrorism means we are almost in a "semi-war" situation", I would have to ask you if, by that, you mean on a permanent, always-ready basis or only on occasions when there some kind of qualifying emergency situation appears to have arisen; if the former, societies subjected to the kinds of strictures and actions thereby sanctioned by government would find themselves placed at constant risk of intrusion by the relevant authorities solely because their government had decided "in their best interests" that this were justified by reason of such a "semi-war" situation having permanently established itself. Is that something that you would find acceptable and, if so, would you not consider that this might play into the hands of terrorists and indeed even perhaps help to exacerbate the effects of their terrorism? And in any case is such terrorism solely urban?

Also, would you only see such a situation applying to threatened or actual terrorist acts as defined by the demonstrable input of known and recognised religious/political terrorist organisations or would you see a need for it to be extended to encompass other very serious criminal activities?

The Boston episode was a clear 'emergency' situation where the normal "rules' were understandably temporarily suspended. Personally, if I were an American, I'd be much more concerned about the current gun laws and the atrocities committed by lone citizens, the latter made much easier by 'the right to bear arms', and that 'right' still stoutly defended by many in the name of individual freedom!

I do agree with your second sentence but it strikes me as having the potential to undermine your point about police responses to certain serious criminal activity; can "terrorist" activities as they are broadly understood credibly be hived off for different kinds of response treatment from other grave crimes such as multiple murder or even non-violent but profoundly and widely damaging ones such as international corporate fraud?

[ahinton]

This "right to bear arms" is a bit of an urban myth. In 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

That's true, of course, but I do think nevertheless that US gun laws as they stand risk making such matters worse than they might otherwise be; scotty does, I think, have a point here and the attention drawn here earlier to the fact that, on average, almost 30 times as many people are murdered daily by the gun in US as were killed in the Boston incident arguably bears this out.

[teamsaint]

We are not in a "Semi war" situation, not even remotely.

However the people of Iraq , Syria, Afghanistan and so on are very much in actual war situations, or have been.

Our governments have been deeply involved in causing or escalating those conflicts.

Time for those with the real power to stop the never ending cycle of violence. We know who they are.

[amateur51]

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.

Oddly enough, scotty, this very situation happened to me when I was living in Queen's Park NW6 when the London terrorist tube and bus bombs went off on 07 July. The police believed that one of the bombers had holed up in a block of flats off Ladbroke Grove, too far away to affect me directly but close enough for me to have friends living in adjacent blocks. There was none of the Boston shenanigans.

[amateur51]

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

Complacency thy name is Mr Pee :erm:

[amateur51]

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

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

Shocking and shameful :sadface:

[Mr Pee]

Oddly enough, scotty, this very situation happened to me when I was living in Queen's Park NW6 when the London terrorist tube and bus bombs went off on 07 July. The police believed that one of the bombers had holed up in a block of flats off Ladbroke Grove, too far away to affect me directly but close enough for me to have friends living in adjacent blocks. There was none of the Boston shenanigans.

Not really the same is it? In Boston, all they knew was that the bomber was on the run somewhere in a 20 block neighbourhood. Whereas in your anecdote, he was thought to be hiding in a block of flats.

[Mr Pee]

Complacency thy name is Mr Pee :erm:

No it is not. I do not believe that the BBC are deliberately over-reporting news from America to distract us from goings-on over here. That is an absurd suggestion, but absurd suggestions seem par for the course on this thread......

In the week of the Boston bombing five members of one British family died in a car collision; a much heavier death toll. But we are so outraged by three deaths in America that we go on to have a minute's silence for them at our London marathon. I wonder what that British family must of thought when so many people stood silently for three Americans?

To be brutally honest, the deaths of 5 people in a road accident is not a major news story, tragic though it is. Road accidents happen every day. Bombings in Boston do not. The London Marathon runners stood in silence because a Marathon was the event that had been bombed. If you expect a minutes silence at every public event for every road accident victim, there would be an awful lot of silence.:peacedove:

[amateur51]

Not really the same is it? In Boston, all they knew was that the bomber was on the run somewhere in a 20 block neighbourhood. Whereas in your anecdote, he was thought to be hiding in a block of flats.

That's it Mr Pee so they had to go in & do a search and there was none of the Boston shenanigans. That's what I'm saying.

I'm sorry that it wasn't possible to do a double-blind trial to satisfy your recent need for rigour.

And let's remind ourselves - how many people had died in Boston that day? Three

And in London? Fifty-two

[Mr Pee]

That's it Mr Pee so they had to go in & do a search and there was none of the Boston shenanigans. That's what I'm saying.

I'm sorry that it wasn't possible to do a double-blind trial to satisfy your recent need for rigour.

Do I need to use words of one syllable? Searching a single block of flats is not the same as searching a 20 block neighbourhood. So the two situations are not comparable. And neither, therefore, is the appropriate response.

If the UK police had known that one of the bombers was hiding out somewhere on a 2 mile square housing development, for example, they might well have adopted similar tactics to those used in Boston, where the US Constitution DOES allow for this sort of action.

The Fourth Amendment protects against search and seizure of private property without a warrant. There is an exception though in exigent circumstances. Cornell University Law School describes this as occurring “when police officers believe they have probable cause and there is no time to obtain a warrant.”

[amateur51]

Do I need to use words of one syllable? Searching a single block of flats is not the same as searching a 20 block neighbourhood. So the two situations are not comparable. And neither, therefore, is the appropriate response.

If the UK police had known that one of the bombers was hiding out somewhere on a 2 mile square housing development, for example, they might well have adopted similar tactics to those used in Boston, where the US Constitution DOES allow for this sort of action.

The Fourth Amendment protects against search and seizure of private property without a warrant. There is an exception though in exigent circumstances. Cornell University Law School describes this as occurring “when police officers believe they have probable cause and there is no time to obtain a warrant.”

One potentially takes more time and more resources than another I agree. Waiting for a bomber who may be lying in wait to blow you up (the London bombers were known to be suicide bombers, remember) or shoot you is just as alarming whether the search is spread of 20 blocks or one, I would suggest.

However neither of us knows how the London police would have responded in the Boston example. One certainty is that the Met is far more experienced than the Boston force in dealing with the aftermath of a bombing. campaign.

[remdataram]

No it is not. I do not believe that the BBC are deliberately over-reporting news from America to distract us from goings-on over here. That is an absurd suggestion, but absurd suggestions seem par for the course on this thread......



To be brutally honest, the deaths of 5 people in a road accident is not a major news story, tragic though it is. Road accidents happen every day. Bombings in Boston do not. The London Marathon runners stood in silence because a Marathon was the event that had been bombed. If you expect a minutes silence at every public event for every road accident victim, there would be an awful lot of silence.:peacedove:

So I suppose clothing factories crumbling in Dhaka, earthquakes in China, along with (un)civil war in Syria are everyday events - nothing like as significant as three people killed in the Boston bombing.

Grossly over reported in my opinion.

As to amateur51's comment, I thought it was cynical and amusing - making a point that shouldn't be taken too literally.

Instead of getting sucked into this any further, I'm going to listen to some Schubert and Mahler.......

[MrGongGong]

when police officers believe they have probable cause
[/I]

I was out of the country for most of this
BUT
this phrase is one that is a bit chilling
OF course the police should be able to search places
but how are we supposed to have faith in their knowledge of "probable cause" when in the
past this "cause" has been taken to mean
1: you have dark skin
2: you sound like you come from Ireland
3: you have a foreign sounding name
4: you appear to be in a hurry

and so on

and so on ..........which (:yawn: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz again and again) IS not to say that it's OK to blow people up :erm: