The Boston Bombings took place to test martial law

reply to post by Covertblack


Can you send a person to jail for murder because of one witness? I'm pretty sure not. I would like to see at least three witnesses (other than police officers) saying that the boys were shooting at the police.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Can you send a person to jail for murder because of one witness? I'm pretty sure not. I would like to see at least three witnesses (other than police officers) saying that the boys were shooting at the police.

Yes, actually you can jail people for murder with one witness. You can also go to jail with no witnesses pinning it on you.

reply to post by Covertblack


But that's only with other evidence. If you send a person to jail with one witness, and no other evidence, that's a pretty corrupt court you have there. I could easily find any murder case that has no evidence and say that I saw you kill that person. More than one witness or some evidence, then you have yourself a trial.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

The fact that they did it so quickly, also makes me think it was a test for martial law. The government wanted to see what would happen if they all of a sudden put martial law into effect. And the results came out pretty good, at least for the government.

Maybe but... if this is indeed the case, I think it m,ore likely that they had to act fast to conduct said test on what was a genuine bombing by a couple of religious militants.

The above is exactly why I have spoken so often in favor of a regular trial for the surviving brother. The American people need to be able to know what is said and done in said proceedings.

I have asked myself numerous times since 9.11, what would I do if this kind of thing happened in my back yard? What would I expect from law enforcement? Would I be inclined to tear them down for doing their job in assuring a certain degree of safety or in capturing a fugitive?

I don't know.

Would I be inclined to wave Old Glory as the cops passed after capturing a suspect? Would I be able to set aside the check points and the paramilitary types wandering the streets? No more Andy of Mayberry... these guys look like soldiers and for all practical purposes, they are.

I don't know.

What I do know is that I love my country, the constitution on which it stands and the heritage of freedom that reflects who and what we all are. I have no shame to share, no reason to turn my back and no desire to live anywhere that prefers the bosom of big brother over the sunlight of liberty.

I hope and pray that I never have to make a choice like that.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

But that's only with other evidence. If you send a person to jail with one witness, and no other evidence, that's a pretty corrupt court you have there. I could easily find any murder case that has no evidence and say that I saw you kill that person. More than one witness or some evidence, then you have yourself a trial.

Well, because there is usually evidence. Doesn't mean people haven't been convicted by just one witness. Also, there will be plenty of evidence presented at the trial.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Ok I see what you are saying So would it be fair for me to say that in your view, what happened in Boston resembled martial law in some way but it wasn’t actually martial law.

That's actually pretty correct. How about we come into agreement that it resembled martial law?

In that case you are saying it resembled martial law rather than it being a test of martial law or actual martial law.

Which means you were wrong with the claims made in your op.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I said "pretty" correct. Must I bring in the definition of the word right now? I did not say you were completely correct.

I heard on a youtube video the other day a portion of a conversation picked up on a police scanner that mentioned a Colonel...."the Colonel wants it!" Now since the Boston Police hierarchy similarity to military rank stops at "Captain" and then goes to Deputy Superintendent, Superintendent, etc up to Commissioner (civilian) then the Colonel must have been an embedded military officer (probably Army altho the Marines use that rank also). So the question is who was this Colonel and was he Special Forces or Military Police? Does anyone have a link to that youtube video or a transcript? I will continue to look for it. Some troll will probably report that it is a member of the BPD who is a Col or LTC in the Army Reserves and "Col" is their nickname.....I dont think so.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


lol nope but you're ignoring the entire point of my comment in "an attempt to derail" it so people won't pay attention to it. the only reason i cited the numbers i did is because you're throwing around an outlandish and wild number in an attempt to prove your point.

so again i ask what could possibly happen, as an isolated event, that would require half the amount of response that was deployed to a combat theater? and that's at the highest point of deployment, mind you. go ahead, come up with a scenario that fits that....i'll wait.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Can you send a person to jail for murder because of one witness? I'm pretty sure not. I would like to see at least three witnesses (other than police officers) saying that the boys were shooting at the police.

boys? since when is a 26 year old married man referred to as a boy? i could maybe see referring to the younger one as a boy, but he's legally an adult. so now you're trying to play the pity card for them. those poor boys, people saying they shot at police and nobody can show me a video of the shootout so i don't believe it. poor poor boys....who are both legally adults, one is closer to 30 than being a 'boy' but hey, i'm calling them boys anyway.

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

lol nope but you're ignoring the entire point of my comment in "an attempt to derail" it so people won't pay attention to it. the only reason i cited the numbers i did is because you're throwing around an outlandish and wild number in an attempt to prove your point.

so again i ask what could possibly happen, as an isolated event, that would require half the amount of response that was deployed to a combat theater? and that's at the highest point of deployment, mind you. go ahead, come up with a scenario that fits that....i'll wait.

In February there were just over 100,000 Nato troops serving in Afghanistan from 50 contributing nations, the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) said.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Now imagine if the people the troops are fighting, came over to the US and started terrorizing cities? You would have hundreds of thousands of troops and I'm sure police officers combating the threat.

reply to post by Shamrock6


Fine, young men. Better?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

lol nope but you're ignoring the entire point of my comment in "an attempt to derail" it so people won't pay attention to it. the only reason i cited the numbers i did is because you're throwing around an outlandish and wild number in an attempt to prove your point.

so again i ask what could possibly happen, as an isolated event, that would require half the amount of response that was deployed to a combat theater? and that's at the highest point of deployment, mind you. go ahead, come up with a scenario that fits that....i'll wait.

In February there were just over 100,000 Nato troops serving in Afghanistan from 50 contributing nations, the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) said.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Now imagine if the people the troops are fighting, came over to the US and started terrorizing cities? You would have hundreds of thousands of troops and I'm sure police officers combating the threat.

key word in your post: "cities." as in plural, as in not isolated. so again I ask you for a scenario that would be an isolated event and would allow the massive draw down of manpower to send 70,000 people to an isolated event. your original comment was 70,000 police/military/whatever at one event. you have yet to explain to us what that event would be that would be isolated enough to allow for that to happen.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

If it was martial law, where was the military governor? Where were the military edicts replacing civilian law? When were the civilian courts closed? You can't test martial law without implementing at least some of the distinctive features of martial law. It would be like testing a new airplane design by driving an automobile around a track. Sure, you're testing a vehicle, but you're not testing any of the features you actually need to test.

Sending a bunch of law enforcement agencies out on a manhunt isn't a test of martial law, if it's a test it's a test of law enforcement. You might not like what they did, maybe it was blatantly illegal from top to bottom, I have no idea ... but it wasn't martial law, it did not exercise the elements of the state involved in martial law, and it did not simulate any of the unique challenges in implementing martial law.

What would you expect to see in an actual test of martial law? Martial law requires interagency cooperation between the military and functioning Federal, state, and local agencies. Any test would undoubtedly focus on tying together the disparate command, control, communications, and intelligence networks. You'd also see logistical exercises (jackbooted oppressors have to eat), some form of court martial or tribunal system to take over for civilian courts, and civil affairs guys running around everywhere. Most of this would take place in a simulated environment with programmed scenarios, but you could also do it in the field with local cooperation.

The very last things you'd do in a martial law test is searches or shows of force. Everyone already knows how to do those. We know how a populace reacts to those. There's no reason to test those capabilities. That's basic training stuff, not interagency continuity of government stuff.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
After thinking a bit, and looking at some posts on this site, I finally came to a conclusion: the Boston Bombings were a way for the government to test martial law, and see to how it would play out.

The fact that just a little more a few days after the Boston Bombings, Boston all of a sudden went on lockdown, intrigued me. Now, I understand that people were let outside, and that they weren't on complete lockdown, but that was just a test to see if people would be afraid to go against it, and do exactly what they were told, which was to stay inside, and comply with all the military vehicles outside with guns pointed at any person the officers see.

The fact that they did it so quickly, also makes me think it was a test for martial law. The government wanted to see what would happen if they all of a sudden put martial law into effect. And the results came out pretty good, at least for the government.

This all happened to test martial law. Not to take away guns, but to test martial law.

Well this all would be a diffrent story if not for the fear element. Take away the phantom bad guy......well.

Does anyone know to comment on how therowly the searches were conducted? Were any unrelated arrests made?

By the way did you hear about the guy that said that they could have used dogs but instead used the time to do the house to house?

Originally posted by Shamrock6

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by Shamrock6
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

lol nope but you're ignoring the entire point of my comment in "an attempt to derail" it so people won't pay attention to it. the only reason i cited the numbers i did is because you're throwing around an outlandish and wild number in an attempt to prove your point.

so again i ask what could possibly happen, as an isolated event, that would require half the amount of response that was deployed to a combat theater? and that's at the highest point of deployment, mind you. go ahead, come up with a scenario that fits that....i'll wait.

In February there were just over 100,000 Nato troops serving in Afghanistan from 50 contributing nations, the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) said.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Now imagine if the people the troops are fighting, came over to the US and started terrorizing cities? You would have hundreds of thousands of troops and I'm sure police officers combating the threat.

key word in your post: "cities." as in plural, as in not isolated. so again I ask you for a scenario that would be an isolated event and would allow the massive draw down of manpower to send 70,000 people to an isolated event. your original comment was 70,000 police/military/whatever at one event. you have yet to explain to us what that event would be that would be isolated enough to allow for that to happen.

Same can apply to one city. It depends on how serious the attack is, how many terrorists, and how many people are affected. If there are thousands of terrorists attacking, say, NYC, you can bet that there are going to be more than 9000 officers, as seen in Boston. You'll have thousands of police officers, US military soldiers, and even soldiers from other countries (NATO).

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


Once again, when I said it was a test for martial law, I did not use the term officially. By definition, for it to be a test of martial law, the only way would be to use police officers or something other than the military. For it to be a test of official martial law, well, that I do not know.

Definition of martial law:

Military government involving the suspension of ordinary law.

I simply used the term martial law, I did use that term in an official manner.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


You keep saying you didn’t mean to use the term martial law “officially”

What exactly do you mean by that, do you mean that you were using the term loosely so you are actually saying it “looked like a test for Martial Law”? because you recognise that it wasn’t “official martial law”.

Why would you say it was a test of martial law and then when people challenge you on it start saying it don’t mean “official Martial law”

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


No, I mean that I simply used the term "martial law" to describe what was happening. If I said it in an official manner, then that would mean the president gave permission, the act would be legal, etc.