It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Inauguration Day Security: Is a Police State Necessary?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:37 AM

Inauguration Day Security: Is a Police State Necessary?

The nation may be waging two wars, but those coming to Washington for the Inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama can be forgiven for wondering if we're in the middle of a third one here at home.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:37 AM
Doesn't that level of "security" worry you?
Way to expect the unexpected!
I wonder what suddenly triggers that kind of preparation. What are they worrying about?
In 2001 when several Europe countries warned about incoming attacks they decided to have a drill operation involving most of the US defenses, but now we have massive amount of resources and personnel to protect the life of the most loved president since "forever".
What do you guys think? Who wants to kill Obama?
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 05:42 AM
It is most surely needed. It is to show everyone that a Police State isnt that BAD. Its to get all those who are going to be living under it very soon that it isnt something to fear and that they are here to help us....didnt you get the memo?

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:10 AM
The preparations are bordering on ridiculous in the effect it is having on people's lives.

My family lives in the DC area (Live in VA, work in DC). My mom has to sleep in her office overnight just to be able to get to work - no word yet if she'll be able to get OUT of the city the night after the inauguration. Another brother who works in the city has 2 days off just so he doesn't have to try and get in. My other brother is a security guard at a facility across the street from the Pentagon, one of the sites hosting viewings on TV. I can't tell you how freakishly ramped up they're going to be, even that far away.

If federal officials truly didn't have any credible threats against the Obamas, then there is absolutely NO reason for all of this. So far, the tab for this event is roughly $150,000,000 and the SS has requested 15 million more. This one event has eaten up all of the money Congress allocated for the YEAR for ALL national events and demonstrations.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by Raytracer

"Inauguration Day Security: Is a Police State Necessary?"

*Sometimes you have to give up liberty for freedom...

Our Tax Dollars at Work - Protecting us From ourselves:

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:32 AM
I was in DC back in 1980 when the Pope came to town and believe me they shut that whole place down, completely!!!! In the red light district there were 4 to 5 officers on every block, the entire mall area was swamped, I never saw anything like that before.

I do think they need to have this level of security. There are some lunatics out there that would love nothing more than to be the one to kill the first Black President. My biological family, which I have no dealings with, have a shameful history with racist groups and I am well aware of the thoughts and actions of these groups. Add to that the threat of other sorts of attacks I think it is warranted.

Trust me on this, it is far better to protect this man than for him to be assassinated. If you think there were riots when Dr. King was assassinated, they would pale into nothingness if something were to happen to President Obama at the hands of a racist organization. I say protect him, get him in office, and move on.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:37 AM
reply to post by redhead57

You brought up an interesting point (in my head, anyway). Yes, the "police-state" is needed for inauguration. Some of my comments above were meant as dry sarcasm. But when does it stop? If the president-elect needs this level of protection on Tuesday, what happens on Wednesday and beyond? Will he continue to need to surround himself in a "police state" bubble?

My grandfather worked for President Kennedy (yeesh, I'm telling a lot about my family today). After his stories, I find matters of Presidential security absolutely fascinating.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Raytracer
Inauguration Day Security: Is a Police State Necessary?

Yes. It is necessary because the politicians have made it into such a huge party - and a huge terrorist target - that we now need all the additional security.

If only the politicians would be sworn in quietly and the American people allowed to watch VIA TV - then we'd save a whole lotta' money AND the attraction for terrorists would be greatly diminished.

It's an expense of our own making. And we could undue the expense.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:55 AM
I have always thought the Inauguration was over the top. The money spent on security, the fanfare, the parties is all too much. In the state of our economy this is far too extravagant. I agree with the above post, make it nice, small and safe.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 09:04 AM
I think the shutting down of just about every bridge into the city will be a surprise for anyone coming from out of town that decides they will drive in and really have not paid attention to it, 2 am road closures begin Tuesday morning, any private vehicle traffic coming from southbound 95 will be diverted to 495 and you are on your own to drive around the beltway or go to route 1, anyone not familiar with the metro area will be in for a big surprise if you didn't get in by now or early Monday.

I think the planning is possibly a little over the top though, the secret service were the drivers of the madness and i think the way traffic is being handled is completely unecessary and will prove to be the biggest problem for the surrounding areas to absorb and the biggest complaint.

What needs to be the most secure is the mile square area around the capital and the parade route, other then that there should not have been the hard lock out of the city for private vehicles and unprecedented road closures, that part of the plan is way overdone.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:49 PM
Thank you guys for you replies!
I didn't mean to say some sort of protection is not necessary, but I thought this is too much... it's even scary if you think about it.
A celebration shouldn't make the lives of the citizens more difficult, and shouldn't expose them to a police state like operation.

Is it really the only way to be on the safe side?
I don't know, maybe it's me, but is a celebration that necessary? As someone pointed out if there is the slightest chance of an "accident" happening, why wouldn't they celebrate on tv, leaving the city free of road blocks etc?

Anyway that doesn't concern me personally for I won't be nowhere near Washington

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:55 PM
Chum in shark infested waters....

The media has hyped this and worked everyone into an absolute fervor. The security I would guess is over the top due to the "Historic" nature of this inauguration. I'd be guessing it's overkill and the number of security, military, SWAT and police is not due to any actual threat but a possible one. The media has done a great job working that angle too.

Everyone is expecting an attempt at terrorism during this event and the security reflects that.

Too bad we'll all be watching the wrong arena.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:01 PM
It was a controversial election, with a controversial candidate, who happens to be black, and no doubt they want to make sure the KKK or some other racist group that shows up in massess doesnt cause any problem, as well as make sure any terrorist plot is thwarted.

Its no police state NWO nonsense. You all need to really take some relax-ative pills or something. Go outdoors, take a little trip to the river, get out and away from the pc for awhile and breath in some fresh air. Maybe even vent out your home of all the NWO stale air.


posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:48 PM
I am glad that this thread was already started. I wanted to see if any of you watched the CNN coverage of the Inauguration. While I was watching the roving reporters on the Mall, they interviewed 3 "college" girls that made it to the Mall for the event. When asked if they had a long wait at one of the security checkpoints to get in to the event they stated, "We did not even have to go through any checkpoints. One of our friends called us and told us of a secret way to get in without going through a checkpoint".

While I was watching this unfold, I was thinking "WOW, those chicks are getting ready to be detained by the Secret Service or some other law enforcement agency that may have been monitoring the coverage on CNN". They were saying that there were a whole bunch of people that knew secret ways around the checkpoints, I found that pretty un-nerving myself...

Did anyone else see that interview?

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:59 PM
1) None of the 11,500 military personnel assigned to inauguration duties have live ammo on their person, those marching in the parade had rifles with fixed bayonets but no ammo.

2) I did not see any officers in riot gear or anything intimidating... in fact I thought the MPDC and the US Capitol Police looked pretty sharp in their dress uniforms.

Was it necessary? ABSOLUTELY.

I noticed that in Obama's parade their were no MPDC motorcycle outriders or any marked LE vehicles anywhere near the presidential limo (they did have police motorcycles and marked vehicles in the back with the actual parade however), in fact it seemed to me that Bush had more visible security assets in 2000 and 2004 then Obama did yesterday.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by ChrisF231]


log in