what triggers martial law?
I was floored by a comment the other day in a thread with Jeff about the heavy handed response by federal, state, and local Law Enforcement regarding the recent criminal activity (note I did not use the word 'terrorist'). He seemed fine with it, generally dismissing it as 'justified, in this case'.
The most conservative among us is fine. Which means that perhaps most of you may be fine with it as well. This is not a personal attack on anyone, especially Jeff; just a barometer, a bellwether of tolerance to such things.
Which begs the question, when does crime fighting cross the line into lockdowns of cities, creating an atmosphere (if not a reality) of martial law?
Others wonder the same:
I cannot help but wonder what the standard is that triggers the martial-law response we’re seeing in New England. If these bombers had murdered three but not caused as many injuries-if the sheer terror of their crime had not reached this magnitude-would Boston look like a totalitarian state right now? What if the police needed to find a serial killer? Or what if a city was home to lots of violent crime in general?
If the suspect escapes into another city tomorrow, can the police lock down one city after another until they find him? And how long will this go on? They might catch him and it might all end and Boston could be back to normal, if we can call it that, by the end of the weekend. What if he isn’t caught for a while? What if a future suspect implicated in a gruesome and dramatic criminal act next year manages to escape justice for months? Can the police now just shut down cities, transportation, and-as they did on Monday*-cell service for as long as they deem necessary? Should normal denizens really have no say of their own on whether they will risk the violent threats that might await them outside? If they have no right to walk about freely today without expecting, at a minimum, serious harassment from authorities, can the same be true on any other day?
This, from a local respected political blogger:
It is deeply concerning that the dominant corporate media narrative of recent events is that Boston was on lockdown and everybody is okay with it. Really?
The images we have seen of tanks and agents of state, federal, and local government authorities, with guns and other weapons, rolling down our neighborhood streets, and going door to door, are absolutely horrifying.
But I’ve seen those images before as a victim of Hurricane Katrina who was in New Orleans, Louisiana at the time of the storm. I had guns shoved in my face by Blackwater when I left my flooded friend’s house after several days in Uptown New Orleans, looking for help. My friends also had guns shoved in their face as they tried to escape downtown. I was one of the many people turned away from the Jefferson Parish line, also at gunpoint.
The rest of their posts cover additional concerns of mine better than I can rant here.
In my opinion, I am concerned. When a country's enemy is invading, martial law is sometimes needed, otherwise GTFO. Worse, this is the first tangible proof that some of the blind conspiracy nuts found a squirrel with this militarization issue. We did not see this type local heavy reponse during wars, why now?
What's your opinion? Situation required this response because the entire city was in danger of ....pressure cookers? A guy with a gun? A couple of guys on the run, shooting cops? What is the difference between a gun and a (relatively) small bomb.
All I ask is you keep things in context with Boston, and not try to divert your opinions with example scenarios or blame Bush or Obama. This is about the people's acceptance of this, not some conspiracy question.
Has America really lost it's balls?
warning: massive image count under cut
Land of the Free™
ETA: for those who insist the lockdown was 'voluntary' I present this AP report.
The most conservative among us is fine. Which means that perhaps most of you may be fine with it as well. This is not a personal attack on anyone, especially Jeff; just a barometer, a bellwether of tolerance to such things.
Which begs the question, when does crime fighting cross the line into lockdowns of cities, creating an atmosphere (if not a reality) of martial law?
Others wonder the same:
I cannot help but wonder what the standard is that triggers the martial-law response we’re seeing in New England. If these bombers had murdered three but not caused as many injuries-if the sheer terror of their crime had not reached this magnitude-would Boston look like a totalitarian state right now? What if the police needed to find a serial killer? Or what if a city was home to lots of violent crime in general?
If the suspect escapes into another city tomorrow, can the police lock down one city after another until they find him? And how long will this go on? They might catch him and it might all end and Boston could be back to normal, if we can call it that, by the end of the weekend. What if he isn’t caught for a while? What if a future suspect implicated in a gruesome and dramatic criminal act next year manages to escape justice for months? Can the police now just shut down cities, transportation, and-as they did on Monday*-cell service for as long as they deem necessary? Should normal denizens really have no say of their own on whether they will risk the violent threats that might await them outside? If they have no right to walk about freely today without expecting, at a minimum, serious harassment from authorities, can the same be true on any other day?
This, from a local respected political blogger:
It is deeply concerning that the dominant corporate media narrative of recent events is that Boston was on lockdown and everybody is okay with it. Really?
The images we have seen of tanks and agents of state, federal, and local government authorities, with guns and other weapons, rolling down our neighborhood streets, and going door to door, are absolutely horrifying.
But I’ve seen those images before as a victim of Hurricane Katrina who was in New Orleans, Louisiana at the time of the storm. I had guns shoved in my face by Blackwater when I left my flooded friend’s house after several days in Uptown New Orleans, looking for help. My friends also had guns shoved in their face as they tried to escape downtown. I was one of the many people turned away from the Jefferson Parish line, also at gunpoint.
The rest of their posts cover additional concerns of mine better than I can rant here.
In my opinion, I am concerned. When a country's enemy is invading, martial law is sometimes needed, otherwise GTFO. Worse, this is the first tangible proof that some of the blind conspiracy nuts found a squirrel with this militarization issue. We did not see this type local heavy reponse during wars, why now?
What's your opinion? Situation required this response because the entire city was in danger of ....pressure cookers? A guy with a gun? A couple of guys on the run, shooting cops? What is the difference between a gun and a (relatively) small bomb.
All I ask is you keep things in context with Boston, and not try to divert your opinions with example scenarios or blame Bush or Obama. This is about the people's acceptance of this, not some conspiracy question.
Has America really lost it's balls?
warning: massive image count under cut
Land of the Free™
ETA: for those who insist the lockdown was 'voluntary' I present this AP report.