It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Boston is a Farce to Take your Rights Away

page: 10
121
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
You cannot give up liberty for safety, because it actually imperils you further!

The only real safety is in freedom.

And no amount of police soldiers can prevent crime, they only react to it.
Sure they may deter it somewhat, but there are always exceptions and loopholes to this that are easily exploited by the criminal types.

Education is the only way to prevent crime.




posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig

Exactly. Then just imagine if the police response was only beat cops and plain clothes detectives working the case. Then the suspects set of more bombs. People would be screaming that the police didn't do their jobs.

Just like people criticizing LE for not stopping this threat. Then when they respond to the threat with a show of force they get criticized.

I swear we can never do anything right.


I can play imagine scenarios tit for tat with you.

Imagine that the government secretly wants to recreate Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, or Hitler's style of regime, and this police state crap is actually designed to destroy our entire nation and lead the world into a state of instability and more war than we have ever seen? Concentration camps, genocide, etc.

What if?
Mine sounds scarier , I win.
Imagine if they got free, managed to place a bomb at a nuclear power plant, irradiated the east coast..blah blah blah
Death, radiation, babbies without moms....
This does nothing, you even said imagine in the first word. Still doesnt answer what exactly should they be doing..



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig

Exactly. Then just imagine if the police response was only beat cops and plain clothes detectives working the case. Then the suspects set of more bombs. People would be screaming that the police didn't do their jobs.

Just like people criticizing LE for not stopping this threat. Then when they respond to the threat with a show of force they get criticized.

I swear we can never do anything right.


I can play imagine scenarios tit for tat with you.

Imagine that the government secretly wants to recreate Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, or Hitler's style of regime, and this police state crap is actually designed to destroy our entire nation and lead the world into a state of instability and more war than we have ever seen? Concentration camps, genocide, etc.

What if?
Mine sounds scarier , I win.


So do you think that the possibility of this suspect detonating more explosives would increase or decrease with minimal police presence?

So you don't agree the police should plan for the worst possible secenario?

Muzzle I promise you if our government started rounding up innocents, killing them and burying them in ditches I would grab my rifle and fight right by your side. I would take a freaking bullet for you. Even though you make my blood boil.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





They should FOLLOW the Constitution. And stop crapping on it, like they are now and have been for a long time.


Where in the Constitution does it explain how to deal with a terrorist on the loose?

Wait a second, those responsibilities are delegated to the states. In this case, the state of Massachusetts. This is a localized event, not a national event, so does the Constitution apply directly here?



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Sounds like too much AJ, if you ask me.


No AJ actually, but awesome contribution to the thread.
It really improved the quality of the discussion.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





They should FOLLOW the Constitution. And stop crapping on it, like they are now and have been for a long time.


Where in the Constitution does it explain how to deal with a terrorist on the loose?

Wait a second, those responsibilities are delegated to the states. In this case, the state of Massachusetts. This is a localized event, not a national event, so does the Constitution apply directly here?



States are prohibited from passing laws that contradict the US Constitution.
So your comment is irrelevant.

Also the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of citizens, turning Boston into a police state is unconstitutional by default.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


I like your avatar as well. The thin blue line. Know a few police officers, and they are a great bunch of guys. A thankless job I know, underpaid, and always being criticized. As for what methods should be used with this manhunt in Boston? The jury is out. However, I do find the response heavy handed. Moreover, the citizens of that suburb is for all intended purposes being confined. All they have to do is look outside their window and see heavily armed law enforcement officers parading through the streets with humvees, apcs, and whatever else we do not see. That sight does not raise the hairs on the back of your neck? I know it does mine.

We are talking about a 19-year-old? One man! That constitutes sending out the calvary! As for the beat cop and plain cloths police officers? They get criminals off the street everyday. It has been like that for as long as I can remember. Moroever, they are getting help from various other agencies as well. I would have settled for a more low-key approach. Standard police procedure, and not what I would akin to invading Poland. I am sorry, but that is my impression about this latest display of force. What are some of your ideas and suggestions? Thanks for the reply!
edit on 19-4-2013 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





They should FOLLOW the Constitution. And stop crapping on it, like they are now and have been for a long time.


Where in the Constitution does it explain how to deal with a terrorist on the loose?

Wait a second, those responsibilities are delegated to the states. In this case, the state of Massachusetts. This is a localized event, not a national event, so does the Constitution apply directly here?



States are prohibited from passing laws that contradict the US Constitution.
So your comment is irrelevant.

Also the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of citizens, turning Boston into a police state is unconstitutional by default.

Where is it a police state, my brother just took at taxi to lunch in downtown Boston....I guess hes on the special list

As I said, they cordoned off a small area where they thought the bomber was, out of risk to the people



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig

Muzzle I promise you if our government started rounding up innocents, killing them and burying them in ditches I would grab my rifle and fight right by your side. I would take a freaking bullet for you. Even though you make my blood boil.


Thank you for supporting our Freedom to speak out against what we believe may be wrong with our system.

That alone right there, puts you as a winner in my book. Thank you very much.

Even if you didn't say that and hated me, I would still stick my neck out for you too. (as I believe I am doing right now by making this thread despite the possible flak I will continue getting for it).



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





They should FOLLOW the Constitution. And stop crapping on it, like they are now and have been for a long time.


Where in the Constitution does it explain how to deal with a terrorist on the loose?

Wait a second, those responsibilities are delegated to the states. In this case, the state of Massachusetts. This is a localized event, not a national event, so does the Constitution apply directly here?



States are prohibited from passing laws that contradict the US Constitution.
So your comment is irrelevant.

Also the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of citizens, turning Boston into a police state is unconstitutional by default.

You must of missed the portion that says that the Federal Government cannot interfere with state laws



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout11cav

You must of missed the portion that says that the Federal Government cannot interfere with state laws


You mean you haven't really studied it very much.

That's Ok, I can teach you all about it.

Supremacy Clause to the US Constitution


Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.


You have been informed.
edit on 19-4-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout11cav

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





They should FOLLOW the Constitution. And stop crapping on it, like they are now and have been for a long time.


Where in the Constitution does it explain how to deal with a terrorist on the



States are prohibited from passing laws that contradict the US Constitution.
So your comment is irrelevant.

Also the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of citizens, turning Boston into a police state is unconstitutional by default.

Where is it a police state, my brother just took at taxi to lunch in downtown Boston....I guess hes on the special list

As I said, they cordoned off a small area where they thought the bomber was, out of risk to the people



hey, hey, hey!!!....you are in direct violation of "obstruction of paranoia"...critical-thinking and logic will not be allowed here. the government is always the bad guy, please tow the line, thank-you
Wait a second, those responsibilities are delegated to the states. In this case, the state of Massachusetts. This is a localized event, not a national event, so does the Constitution apply directly here?

edit on 19-4-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of citizens, turning Boston into a police state is unconstitutional


Prohibits the Federal Government, right? Congress has not passed a bill that turns Boston into a police state, the local law enforcement has ordered units into position. There was no mandate from the Federal Government dictating the actions of the SWAT teams now functioning in the Boston area.

Why blame the Federal Government and lament the Constitution in such inapplicable instances?



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
they are also imposing religion on it. They keep mentioning "muslim! muslim!" but the family is atheist

main stream media is all a lie







Я не хранитель моего брата
Я - атеист



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of citizens, turning Boston into a police state is unconstitutional


Prohibits the Federal Government, right?


NO

It prohibits the federal state county and city governments from infringing on the rights listed as protected in that document (US Constitution)

I just linked the Supremacy Clause for you above to read and learn about.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Eloquently stated. Although I will have to disagree with you. I think a heavy handed response is warranted in this type of situation.

He's 19 he's an adult. While he may be one person he has a force multiplier. He has explosives. That can effectively turn one person into a small army.

That being said, if the presence of police and how they are responding to things continue after the suspect is caught and the case is closed I would have a problem. If the government tries to take away more of our rights after this I will absolutely call foul.

However I am sure once it is closed the heavy presence will dissapate.
edit on 19-4-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Those defending illegal police state actions = Prove themselves to not actually know much about the Constitution and how it works.

Surprise surprise....

That is exactly why they didn't understand my OP and took affront to it subconsciously, because they don't understand the Constitution (and it's questionable if they even understand human rights concepts very well either).

Sorry if you get burnt by this harsh critique, but if you did, it's because you made a terrible post and it needed to be incinerated.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of citizens, turning Boston into a police state is unconstitutional


Prohibits the Federal Government, right?


NO

It prohibits the federal state county and city governments from infringing on the rights listed as protected in that document (US Constitution)

I just linked the Supremacy Clause for you above to read and learn about.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Check out 10 sometime



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I see..and how would you have dealt with this situation ?

Perhaps we could have educated the two suspects into not killing innocent people?

Oh wait, I know ..their are no suspects..This is a FF from the PTB to implement a PS which will cause everyone to BO when the SHTF.

Their I think I hit all the conspiracy acronyms.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
the whole city of boston is on lockdown
shelter in place
for a kid with a pistole?
did they do that for Dorner out in LA?

guess thats what the OP is about right there



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join