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.

 

If your city is on "lock-down", do NOT look outside.

page: 23
92
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Kram09
I thought the military weren't allowed on U.S. streets?

They sure look like the military to me in that picture. The police in the U.S. have been so militarised there's not much distinction with equipment like that.


National Guard is absolutely allowed on US streets.


Not if their paycheck or the operation is funded by the federal government.




posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivbnu
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


That is obsurd. So you are saying they just dropped it in 2011 and that was that. It is not a violation of someones rights to follow them to an event to see what they are up to.
Are you saying they checked just not him? that seems odd and sloppy. Still thier fault imo.


No, I am saying, by the laws of this country, they had to stop keeping him under surveillance after a certain amount of time if they found no incriminating evidence.

Personally, I like the fact that my government is not allowed to watch my every move without reason. That right is something I have fought for.

there's no debating that there was a failure of intelligence in this case. We can sit and say 'the FBI should have done this or that". The fact of the matter is that there was the failure of intelligence, an attack happened, and they had to respond. There was no way around it. THEY HAD TO DO SOMETHING.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Kram09
I thought the military weren't allowed on U.S. streets?

They sure look like the military to me in that picture. The police in the U.S. have been so militarised there's not much distinction with equipment like that.


National Guard is absolutely allowed on US streets.


Not if their paycheck or the operation is funded by the federal government.
The National guard is excluded from Posse Comitatus act while under the authority of a governor of a state.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE
 


Thats what i keep saying. I would rather take my chances with the kid any day. I can't stand the thought of this becoming normal.
Pretty soon every cercumstance will require this kind of response. Scary!


I aplogize for my spelling I attended public school and haven't had time to recover. (im 50)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I have a question for all those who oppose this type of action:

Why, as a member of a society, would you NOT want to help the police in catching dangerous and armed criminals who had already murdered 3 people and injured over 200 more? Why would you want to make it MORE difficult to find that person?


I can't imagine that anybody would want that these subjects weren't apprehended or whacked, but if our society operated by its original design, then people would be packing, with no restrictions on what they carry, and terrorists wouldn't have a chance. Our society was originally designed such that people took some responsibility for their own defense. The whole idea of relying on the federal government or the police is what got us into this mess in the first place.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Kram09
I thought the military weren't allowed on U.S. streets?

They sure look like the military to me in that picture. The police in the U.S. have been so militarised there's not much distinction with equipment like that.


National Guard is absolutely allowed on US streets.


Not if their paycheck or the operation is funded by the federal government.
The National guard is excluded from Posse Comitatus act while under the authority of a governor of a state.

en.wikipedia.org...


Which is exactly what I just said. Read.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

I completely agree with your statement that the National Guard can be used on our streets.

Regarding my thought that you are dishonest,
Hmmm. Maybe you don't understand.

Here is the pertinent portion of your sentence without the words 'what' and 'if',
Would you do the shoe was on the other foot?

Now, remove the words 'would you do', those words that you seem to think change your sentence so much.
What if the shoe was on the other foot?

Removing the words 'what if' makes your sentence meaningless.
Removing the words 'would you do' does not change the meaning of the sentence.

I don't care if you are too dense to see it, but I am going with my gut and leaving troll-land.


Sigh....this is tiresome. I dont really have the patience to explain this in any further detail than I already have. its off topic, and its quite obvious that you either dont get it, or are being intentionally obtuse. Either way, I simply dont have the motivation.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Kram09
I thought the military weren't allowed on U.S. streets?

They sure look like the military to me in that picture. The police in the U.S. have been so militarised there's not much distinction with equipment like that.


National Guard is absolutely allowed on US streets.


Not if their paycheck or the operation is funded by the federal government.
The National guard is excluded from Posse Comitatus act while under the authority of a governor of a state.

en.wikipedia.org...


Which is exactly what I just said. Read.


Fair enough, then, maybe I missed the point of what you were saying. I am speaking of this situation, and in this situation, it was completely legal for the national guard to be on the streets.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Maybe you missed it. THEY KNEW WHO HE WAS. They talked to him in 2011, he was no threat. So when his picture came up and he became a suspect they al the sudden didn't know him anymore? that does't make sense.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Kram09
I thought the military weren't allowed on U.S. streets?

They sure look like the military to me in that picture. The police in the U.S. have been so militarised there's not much distinction with equipment like that.


National Guard is absolutely allowed on US streets.


Not if their paycheck or the operation is funded by the federal government.
The National guard is excluded from Posse Comitatus act while under the authority of a governor of a state.

en.wikipedia.org...


Which is exactly what I just said. Read.


Fair enough, then, maybe I missed the point of what you were saying. I am speaking of this situation, and in this situation, it was completely legal for the national guard to be on the streets.


Not if their paycheck or the operation was funded by the federal government.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Ok.

How would you go about catching a potentiality dangerous terrorist who has no regard for human life whatsoever and has killed on two occasions that is at large in an urban area and may have access to explosives and possible accomplices?

Remember, you have no clue where he is at all, except for a general area, no idea what his motives are and what equipment he has at his disposal.

There's a pretty heavy-duty scenario. How do you solve it?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
If the trend towards militarization continues among PDs & the alphabet soup this will have been just a faint glimpse of what is to come.

What i don't get is how little people react to this continuous erosion of personal space, now they lock you into your home, soon enough they'll lock you into a cage (for your safety). Meanwhile, the agency of Thugs Stealing Accessories gets to lift a couple of items of their choice

see f-ex: www.komonews.com...

while using your body for a peep show and groping you if they're in the mood without as much as word boycott thrown in anywhere. IF people had just turned to teleconferences and driving while avoiding air travel like the plague, you can bet that they'd have toned it down a notch or three. But no, invasive security theater continues its march towards a desaster of epic proportions while any voice is blotted out by the baaing of the sheople.

I have an idea for the next bomber /terrorist /shooter: before getting in the groove, apply at a PD or alphabet soup group and play nice for a couple of years. I think that's what they call a 'force multiplier' in the business.


===============================================================================


Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Ok.

How would you go about catching a potentiality dangerous terrorist who has no regard for human life whatsoever and has killed on two occasions that is at large in an urban area and may have access to explosives and possible accomplices?

Remember, you have no clue where he is at all, except for a general area, no idea what his motives are and what equipment he has at his disposal.

There's a pretty heavy-duty scenario. How do you solve it?


uhh, let me see the, maybe not allow them to break contact? maybe try to arrive with more than a deputy and his pet k9, as if that was your run-o-mill domestic altercation call? these people make a habit of storming every farmer's front door with 200 SWAT types if they suspect him to breed the wrong type of pig or something similarly silly, but the marathon bombers they will confront on even terms.

maybe when you arrive with superior numbers you can split up and still maintain a comfortable margin of superiority? maybe learn to win a firefight against untrained opponents without armor?

let me put it this way, if there's a gas leak, maybe people will be asked to evacuate, maybe it'll be dangerous, but it's very clear from the outset whose work it is and that the contracted party has no right whatsoever to randomly intrude into peoples' lives beyond what is materially unavoidable.

PS: i'd wager people will start another ammo debate seeing as a wounded criminal was able to go into hiding, for a day - and lived
edit on 2013.4.28 by Long Lance because: compound post



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


The questions you ask are some of the most crucial of our age, really.

I don't have the answers. I just know what doesn't seem efficient, effective or, most importantly, Constitutional.

What I do know for sure is this: It was a citizen going about his business that resulted in Tsarnaev's capture. Thats speaks volumes.

It was also a citizen that alerted authorities to the Times Square car bomb.

And it was citizens that tackled the shoe bomber.

But for ten plus years the Police State has harassed the elderly, children and the infirmed in airport security lines.

So, from where I sit, freedom and civil liberty is looking pretty damn good and effective. Especially if the alternative is furtherance of the oppressive and costly Police State.

And back atcha...What would have happened if he had not been captured just minutes after the shelter in place was lifted?

Your comments imply that you think it would have been warranted to take far more reaching and drastic measures. Like what? Nationwide road blocks? Asking for i.d. on the street? Where would it end? How much is enough?

The Police State never recedes, give an inch and it takes a mile. We, as citizens, have to draw a firm line at our Constitutional Rights.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
If you automatically oppose anything that has to do with the police, keep in mind, that you are a major part of the problem, not the solution.


Agreed. However I think this crosses a line. The reason we were after these terrorists was because they stole the liberty of thousands of people peacefully assembling for a marathon. In turn, our governments stole the liberty of millions in the city of Boston to catch them.

While I agree, we need to give law enforcement and our military (let's face it, those are soldiers on the street not policemen) some room to do their job. But if you don't think this crossed the line of protecting people's liberty and enforcement of the people's law then where is that line for you?

The moment an innocent person standing in their bedroom window was actively placed in iron sights by the person supposedly protecting them is a line in my book. That would be terrifying and just because some Islamic a-holes killed a bunch of people doesn't mean another innocent needs to be terrorized in turn by a domestic army cruising down the street in a armored truck with a rifle turret. I mean isn't marching the army down a street in some ways giving these sicko's exactly what they want: terrorize people?

When the top comes down the people will be clapping and giving high fives whilst singing patriotic chants. Boston is a microcosm of this; but the high fives and cheers will be short lived once we realize the checkpoints and paper checks will never be going away,



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivbnu
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Maybe you missed it. THEY KNEW WHO HE WAS. They talked to him in 2011, he was no threat. So when his picture came up and he became a suspect they al the sudden didn't know him anymore? that does't make sense.
Ugh.
They had not yet identified the men in the picture, therefore, they could not know that it was the same person that they had had contact with.

It really isnt that complicated.

I do hope you realize that your argument is extremely pro-government surveillance and anti-privacy.
edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3mperorConstantinE

I would prefer to deal with the 19 year old kid with the crock pots and the stolen gun hiding in my backyard shed, rather than see g'damned troops barreling down residential city streets in my neighborhood.
I'm not asking the 5-0 for any protection or help. Don't want it and I don't need it, and everyone I know feels exactly the same. That's just not how we do things.

If the 19 year old wants to try to break into my home, then that'll be his problem.

I don't want heavily-armed DHS/FBI/BPD/SWAT/N.Guard. fellas aiming their damned weapons in my open windows, shouting to shut them, and "shelter in place!", or "Get your hands up! Move! Move! Move!" as innocent people are emptied from their residence.

F—that.
They were looking for young, urban dwelling people here America.
They weren't hunting down the the Fallujah Brigade.

Ten FBI agents could have remedied this situation faster.
There is no excuse for this costly exercise which runs roughshod over the long-established principles of personal Liberty in this country.


Would you feel the same way if it were 5 bombs? 50? At what point do you think it would be "acceptable" to unleash the big dogs?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So your saying that in the photo they released he was un identified? so who identified him?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by gladtobehere
 



Originally posted by gladtobehere
Clearly, the photographer was using his camera, was that his crime, taking a pic?


No one said there was a crime. Was the photographer arrested?

Your title is actually very good advice. If your town is on lock-down and there's a military presence in the street outside your house, it's a REALLY good idea to stay away from the doors and windows. Any movement under these circumstances is going to attract the powerful end of a weapon. It's common sense. They were looking for an armed and dangerous man. Don't give them any reason to think you might be him.


That's right. Instead of looking out the window just fall down on your knees and start worshipping the Police/Military. That is the only way to truely feel safe.

Maybe even start licking his boots that would help too, I'm sure.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenerationGap

The moment an innocent person standing in their bedroom window was actively placed in iron sights by the person supposedly protecting them is a line in my book. That would be terrifying and just because some Islamic a-holes killed a bunch of people doesn't mean another innocent needs to be terrorized in turn by a domestic army cruising down the street in a armored truck with a rifle turret. I mean isn't marching the army down a street in some ways giving these sicko's exactly what they want: terrorize people?


I could appreciate your concern if this had been the last photo the camera man ever took, but it wasn't. I'm even willing to bet that the next picture he took was of the soldier motioning him to GET BACK.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Good point, but was this all nessisary for a 19 year old kid, and every one in Boston with a TV knew what the kid looked like, and trust me he wouldn't make it out of any of any those neighborhoods if he was spotted on the street by the common wealth.....lol, just saying.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join