Boston is a Farce to Take your Rights Away

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Apparently the 4th amendment did not exist in Boston today.

You know what they say about sacrificing liberty for security....in the end you get neither.

Seriously, dude ...

against unreasonable searches and seizures

I really dont find today's home searches to be unreasonable at all.

A TERRORIST WAS ON THE LOOSE !!!

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom


Let us all hope and pray none of us have to find out what Martial Law truly is!

Boston just found out today.
A tame version sure.

But they are boiling us (the frog) here. It's incrementally.

This time they ask to come in to search, next time it's even more dangerous terrorism, so they just kick in doors.

They are taking one inch at a time and over a period of years I can see a massive difference.

The last time the closest event to Martial Law was activated in America was during Katrina.

Today was a Shelter In Place , notice how you have dropped that argument when you finally realized it's not some term I made up.

Along with the SiP were Police Searches going to house to house looking for a suspect in an alleged crime.

It's ok though, keep telling yourself their was Martial Law in Boston.

Originally posted by SMR

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Apparently the 4th amendment did not exist in Boston today.

You know what they say about sacrificing liberty for security....in the end you get neither.

Seriously, dude ...

against unreasonable searches and seizures

I really dont find today's home searches to be unreasonable at all.

A TERRORIST WAS ON THE LOOSE !!!

edit on 4/20/2013 by SMR because: Spelling

Your cowardly Fear does not trump our courageous freedom.

Back off our rights, mr tyrant.

Originally posted by SMR

I really dont find today's home searches to be unreasonable at all.

A TERRORIST WAS ON THE LOOSE !!!

edit on 4/20/2013 by SMR because: Spelling

Beyond that, they weren't constitutionally unreasonable because they were done with the voluntary consent of homeowners (who were understandably eager to assist law enforcement in apprehending a terrorist who had bombed their own city).

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by TinSnail

the best thing good people can do.. is simply just maintain their lifestyle.. live normally. not jump to conclusions or be whipped up in a fury of hate.. because a strike in anger is always less effective for defense than one done calmly and in clear mind

A very wise and well thought out post TinSnail. It was a pleasure to feast my eyes upon it, thank you for that.

I agree, people need to live life the way they want, and enjoy themselves and maybe help others enjoy themselves too. Life is short and so we better enjoy it asap.

I agree with your example about striking in anger.
That is why we must strike with precision and determination and a focused mind.

Allow the very energy of the universe itself, ebbing all around us, to guide our hand.

We actually have enough "Polarization" in America, at the present moment.

Now, I don't know if this was a "Farce" to take our rights away, but I do know all it takes is a few "executive decisions" to Take them.

You can say that this was indeed a textbook "take down". I am hoping that there isn't more "Terrorists" or a cell of them involved in this. I do want to know WHY this guy was allowed back into the United States after Russia considered him a person of interest, or outright believed he was a Terrorist. We need real transparency, as our President stated he was all for in 09.

Glad the thread is back on track.....





Star and Flag for the discussion muzzleflash. Well done.

Sheer BOLLOCKS, this whole premise. This was EXACTLY what it ended up being, a crucial and successful manhunt in a urban area that is densely populated

Come on...

I wish I could embed this for all to see but forum limits I think ...
abload.de...

Enough said !

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by SMR

I really dont find today's home searches to be unreasonable at all.

A TERRORIST WAS ON THE LOOSE !!!

edit on 4/20/2013 by SMR because: Spelling

Beyond that, they weren't constitutionally unreasonable because they were done with the voluntary consent of homeowners (who were understandably eager to assist law enforcement in apprehending a terrorist who had bombed their own city).

Well it was highly coercive if any of those reports are close to true.

When police come to the door and say "Terrorists!" 90% of the population will roll over and buckle under the pressure. That is what I call coercion.

People knew the suspect wasn't in their house, they had been in there all day since they were kept there by extremely overbearing fear mongering propaganda promoted by the US Govt to make sure terrorists can milk every ounce of fear out of their victims.

So what you call "consent" I call trickery and manipulation.

It's like how we "Voluntarily Consent" to the IRS tax. But if you don't , you get in trouble.

So yes, the Boston house raids were as "Voluntary in Consent" as the IRS tax is.

then there is also project gladio where the nato regime did just what happened to boston in europe
and we have three presidents eligible for war crimes acording to a by partisan review just released(buried)
during the bombing
our governments seem to have no trouble commiting these acts because they are great cut out for the quilty to escape blame

todays taste test martial had elements of never let a good crisis go to waste at the least

Originally posted by muzzleflash
When police come to the door and say "Terrorists!" 90% of the population will roll over and buckle under the pressure. That is what I call coercion.

Wasnt like they walked up and said 'candy-gram' !
Not sure you understood the severity of the issue the past week but I can assure you, it was pretty serious. There are photo's and video showing it all. Maybe go have a look

muzzleflash, I have to say I think you're right.


"Boston Bombing NWO....what you missed.."




I like the "how quick people forget" part..... @ 5 minutes in

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Well it was highly coercive if any of those reports are close to true.

When police come to the door and say "Terrorists!" 90% of the population will roll over and buckle under the pressure. That is what I call coercion.

People knew the suspect wasn't in their house, they had been in there all day since they were kept there by extremely overbearing fear mongering propaganda promoted by the US Govt to make sure terrorists can milk every ounce of fear out of their victims.

So what you call "consent" I call trickery and manipulation.

It's like how we "Voluntarily Consent" to the IRS tax. But if you don't , you get in trouble.

So yes, the Boston house raids were as "Voluntary in Consent" as the IRS tax is.

I have not seen the reports you're referring to, but I don't understand what you think a reasonable legal standard would be beyond voluntary consent when law enforcement is seeking a suspect in an emergency. Police officers clearly have the right to knock on people's doors and ask for help/information in an investigation.

I suppose if you're worried that merely stating the purpose of the visit - "we're seeking a terrorist" - will already make a request coercive, police could lie to homeowners and say, "We're just checking up on the neighborhood...." I can't imagine you would support that. If you think merely showing up in police uniforms is coercive, I also can't imagine you think it would be better if they weren't wearing uniforms at all.

In short, how do you propose police officers obtain voluntary consents to search houses? Or do you think they shouldn't be allowed to at all without a warrant? Do you think it's efficient or sensible to force officers to get judicially approved warrants in emergency situations when the homeowner is perfectly willing to give their consent?

reply to post by muzzleflash


thanx already know all about paperclip and dozens of other terrible secrets revealed over the years through
the FOIA! Operation sunrise is new to me though did a quick breeze through the net for sunrise though and
could not find much but will have to do more research when I have some more time! I assume this operation has to do with the high level Nazi science division! Which today is most likely above any congressional accountability!
How could we have been so foolish to let these evil bastards into our science and intelligence agencies?
Sorry for going off topic OP!

Maybe this was a "reverse" Martial law to protect the public from harm? To assist law enforcement better detect any suspicious movements.

Also, not shoot the wrong person?

In an instance like this that they are looking for a particular subject, to tell you the truth -- I have no qualms about house to house searches. That extreme practice was done back when JFK got assassinated. Did it give the feds an inch to gain more power over the last 50 years?

Originally posted by skorpius
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I agree, however, you would be alone. not enough People are hungry or scared enough to stand up yet.

You're wrong. As long as I am still breathing he won't be alone. We may never meet, and live states apart, but he will know he is not alone, and I'm pretty sure I'm not just speaking for myself here. Maybe there aren't enough people to stand up, but there are enough to be noticed. And if you have to be hungry enough, or scared enough to stand up, then that is just weaknes. Why can't being angry be enough? I'm mad as hell, who's with me?

Originally posted by Springer
Sheer BOLLOCKS, this whole premise.

This was EXACTLY what it ended up being, a crucial and successful manhunt in a urban area that is densely populated

Come on...

edit on 4-20-2013 by Springer because: (no reason given)

Whoa Springer!

This may be the first time you ever posted in one of my threads, and I have 141 of them and have been here for a long time.

I want to be the first to welcome you to this most chaotic debate fine sir!

I would like to point out that any mass of heavily armed militarized quasi-police should in theory, be able to catch terrorists, however I am personally not willing to sacrifice my right to liberty as a consequence of that.

It would be a trade off I feel is far too costly and doesn't produce the types of rewards that it should for it's unbelievable high cost.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Apply simple logic my friends.
See, historically the way to treat terrorists is to never give into their demands and never grant unreasonable publicity to them. This way there is no incentive to commit terrorism acts for political gain.

Sorry, but u r nutz.


Seriously though, look... Can u say a nut when u c one?

Originally posted by muzzleflash


It would be a trade off I feel is far too costly and doesn't produce the types of rewards that it should for it's unbelievable high cost.

I think "executive decisions" are the biggest threat that a President can enact.

I worry more about this, then anything else actually.

MHO