Ron Paul on Boston bombings

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

I always love these reponses. It's a thread on a message board that I find interesting. What's the big deal what random poster X thinks about Kobe Bryant's inury or poster Y about the Cleveland Indian's offense or poster Z about the GOP? Why can't I discuss it with Molson and others? Why do you care so much to worry about me?

I wasn't trying to come off snarky, if I did I apologize. My intention wasn't to question the point of the purpose of the discussion.

I am genuinly curious why the reponse by the police bothers you.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Seems like we are getting into Bill Clinton "Explain what is is" territory.




Meanwhile in Iraq in an armed conflict...

You're either (a) trying your damndest to defend your iconic political figure (b) dumb as a brick

They also have McDonalds at the US bases in Iraq. Does that mean that McDonalds is a military restaurant??

It's when you engage in stupid hyperboles like this that makes people not take your more serious and well thought out points more seriously.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Can't we say the response was appropriate because in the end the suspect was caught with no further loss of life? That was the goal, was it not?

What he says. They caught the guy with minimal injuries. Nobody died. That outweighs whatever inconvenience businesses and individuals experienced.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I wasn't trying to come off snarky, if I did I apologize. My intention wasn't to question the point of the purpose of the discussion.

I am genuinly curious why the reponse by the police bothers you.

My apologies as well. I read your response as "Why are you wasting your time posting a thread like this" and obviously that wasn't your intention.

I don't like excessive police force. This case is certainly not cut and dry as others but often police actions are covered by "They keep us safe" and "They do a thankless job". To me that doesn't excuse brutality and excessive force. Like I said this particular incident doesn't fall under brutality but it does border on excessive and I don't like thinking this may be our future. I think the police really need to be kept in check and while they were throwing ticker tape parades to the police after the 2nd bombing suspect was caught they fail to realize...

A) These same police didn't stop the bombers from the initial incident
B) A private citizen ultimately caught the suspect

I don't think the United States is going to become the East German Stasi overnight but I also don't think the German people thought that either. I just think it is best to always be a watchdog over the police (regardless of political affiliation etc) and hope this doesn't lead to another round of federal tax money being spend on more armored vechicles.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

My apologies as well. I read your response as "Why are you wasting your time posting a thread like this" and obviously that wasn't your intention.

I don't like excessive police force. This case is certainly not cut and dry as others but often police actions are covered by "They keep us safe" and "They do a thankless job". To me that doesn't excuse brutality and excessive force. Like I said this particular incident doesn't fall under brutality but it does border on excessive and I don't like thinking this may be our future. I think the police really need to be kept in check and while they were throwing ticker tape parades to the police after the 2nd bombing suspect was caught they fail to realize...

A) These same police didn't stop the bombers from the initial incident
B) A private citizen ultimately caught the suspect

I don't think the United States is going to become the East German Stasi overnight but I also don't think the German people thought that either. I just think it is best to always be a watchdog over the police (regardless of political affiliation etc) and hope this doesn't lead to another round of federal tax money being spend on more armored vechicles.

B) A private citizen ultimately ALERTED THE POLICE TO THE PRESENCE OF THE SUSPECT. The police then were able to respond swiftly before he had any chance to get away (notwithstanding his injuries) because they had an appropriate level of presence.

FWIW - I haven't heard a single person here in MA complain that they felt the level of police presence was too high, or that they were inconvienced to the point where it became an issue, or that their rights were trampled on. And I have 2 friends that live in Watertown within a couple miles of where he was eventually caught.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You're either (a) trying your damndest to defend your iconic political figure (b) dumb as a brick

They also have McDonalds at the US bases in Iraq. Does that mean that McDonalds is a military restaurant??

It's when you engage in stupid hyperboles like this that makes people not take your more serious and well thought out points more seriously.

I haven't defended Paul a whole lot the entire thread. I think I used the term tank and was defending myself because I really thought they were driving tanks around the city when I watched the footage and still think the scene looked like something out of a military zone instead of an American city. Again its pretty disengenous to act like since its not a tank the police were not armed like the military.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I fully respect the other point of view but also think that claiming the police and their vechicles weren't armed to the tooth in a military fashion is really just as disingenuous as Paul's banana republic comments.

You seem to grossly underestimate what firepower the military can (and will) bring to bear in a situation.

That boat would have made a lovely target for a LAW rocket, as well as a variety of airstrike options. Best I can tell, that wasn't considered as a primary option in Boston.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

B) A private citizen ultimately ALERTED THE POLICE TO THE PRESENCE OF THE SUSPECT. The police then were able to respond swiftly before he had any chance to get away (notwithstanding his injuries) because they had an appropriate level of presence.

FWIW - I haven't heard a single person here in MA complain that they felt the level of police presence was too high, or that they were inconvienced to the point where it became an issue, or that their rights were trampled on. And I have 2 friends that live in Watertown within a couple miles of where he was eventually caught.

Hyberbole yourself DT? Not a single person in MA has complained?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I haven't defended Paul a whole lot the entire thread. I think I used the term tank and was defending myself because I really thought they were driving tanks around the city when I watched the footage and still think the scene looked like something out of a military zone instead of an American city. Again its pretty disengenous to act like since its not a tank the police were not armed like the military.

FTR, my criticism of the word tank was based on RP's use of the word, not yours. I even went back to check the original quote to make sure he actually said it, I didn't look at the thread to see who said what word any further than that.

[panerd]

Well I gotta get back to work so sorry if anyone feels like I am not responding. Probably shouldn't respond to like 4 different people a minute before my break ends.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Again its pretty disengenous to act like since its not a tank the police were not armed like the military.

Again, they weren't armed "like the military". If they had been, there's be a considerably larger debris field around where that asshole was captured.

He would also most likely have left in a body bag instead of handcuffs. (Once he failed to respond to a call to surrender, most units in a combat zone would have lit his ass up like a Christmas tree)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Kodos

What he says. They caught the guy with minimal injuries. Nobody died. That outweighs whatever inconvenience businesses and individuals experienced.

But the question could be asked - next time a city is faced with a fugitive situation, should it go on lockdown? After all, it worked.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Hyberbole yourself DT? Not a single person in MA has complained?

Read again. "THAT I'VE HEARD."

And I qualified it by saying "inconvienced beyond what they felt was reasonable" (or whatever exact words I used).

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

But the question could be asked - next time a city is faced with a fugitive situation, should it go on lockdown? After all, it worked.

There are quite a few fugitives still at large in this country. Have any of them been tracked down in this manner since this incident?

Slippery slope arguments involving law enforcement officers are pretty tenuous I think, because the entire nature of the job involves varying degrees and methods of responses to an infinite variety of situations. If some police force responds to a regular burglary with in an excessive way, and damages property and injures civilians in the process, I'd say that's on them, that wouldn't be the Boston PD's fault. I don't think the Boston response should have been restrained solely for the purpose of reducing the possibility of police "copycat" manhunts.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

But the question could be asked - next time a city is faced with a fugitive situation, should it go on lockdown? After all, it worked.

There is a lot of gray area with this.

I think it depends on what the fugitive has done and is capable of doing. In this situation it was shown he had the capacity to inflict large amounts of damage and no regard for innocent people, including children.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

But the question could be asked - next time a city is faced with a fugitive situation, should it go on lockdown? After all, it worked.

I think in a situation where the fugitive has been using guns and bombs--Yes.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

There are quite a few fugitives still at large in this country. Have any of them been tracked down in this manner since this incident?

Slippery slope arguments involving law enforcement officers are pretty tenuous I think, because the entire nature of the job involves varying degrees and methods of responses to an infinite variety of situations. If some police force responds to a regular burglary with in an excessive way, and damages property and injures civilians in the process, I'd say that's on them, that wouldn't be the Boston PD's fault. I don't think the Boston response should have been restrained solely for the purpose of reducing the possibility of police "copycat" manhunts.

Not yet - but I think it will be interesting to see if the course of action is taken now that it has been taken. I'm not really arguing slippery slope, I don't think. I'm arguing precedent - this is an approach that has now already been used.

[TroyF]

I'm not singling anyone out on here, but what this really turns into most of the time is what side of the political fence your are on AND the result of what happened that causes the judgement for most people.

If there were no lockdown called and 30 people died, it would all come down to party lines. A dem would get shredded by reps, a rep would get shredded by dems. The other side would say "their" guy acted correctly and the results just didn't pan out.

I think when people lose the ability to say "the other side was right" or "Maybe this isn't what I would have done, but in hindsight it was a reasonable plan" we go down rabbit holes that we shouldn't be going down.

The response didn't seem poor in this case, things ended ok and the goal was achieved. I think Paul needs to back off here.

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not singling anyone out on here, but what this really turns into most of the time is what side of the political fence your are on AND the result of what happened that causes the judgement for most people.

If there were no lockdown called and 30 people died, it would all come down to party lines. A dem would get shredded by reps, a rep would get shredded by dems. The other side would say "their" guy acted correctly and the results just didn't pan out.

I think when people lose the ability to say "the other side was right" or "Maybe this isn't what I would have done, but in hindsight it was a reasonable plan" we go down rabbit holes that we shouldn't be going down.

The response didn't seem poor in this case, things ended ok and the goal was achieved. I think Paul needs to back off here.

Just look at how people have criticized the Obama administration for "not doing more" to stop this in the first place when there were "warnings" from Russia. That's always the way it's going to be, if there's a good outcome, they could have gotten the same good outcome with less of a response, if it's a bad outcome, they should have done more. The tricky part is you have to decide on the response BEFORE the outcome is known. Seems obvious, but I think that's forgotten after the fact. There were already people criticizing the Boston PD for not getting him a couple of hours after tracking him down in Watertown. At that point, it could have been argued that they should have had a more comprehensive response.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

FWIW - I haven't heard a single person here in MA complain that they felt the level of police presence was too high, or that they were inconvienced to the point where it became an issue, or that their rights were trampled on. And I have 2 friends that live in Watertown within a couple miles of where he was eventually caught.

That to me is a key point. I'm largely not going to criticize how anyone responds to a terror event until it happens to me. If the governor, the mayors and the people of Boston don't have a problem with this, it's OK by me.

I agree with civil libertarians to a degree. But let's discuss the constitution for a moment. Can anyone make a substantial legal argument that anything unconstitutional happened in Boston? Specifically:

* What part of the constitution prohibits a voluntary shelter in place order?
* While the constitution prohibits unreasonable researches, is searching for an alleged terrorist without entering anyone's home or business an unreasonable search?
* From the press conferences, it's my understanding the governor issued the shelter in place order. Given the constitution does not prohibit it, doesn't the constitution guarantee the states have the right to issue a shelter in place order?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

But the question could be asked - next time a city is faced with a fugitive situation, should it go on lockdown? After all, it worked.

Completely depends on the situation. I do not recall a single comparable event to this one. Every situation is different. We may go 20 years or more without a comparable event.

This got a lot of attention, but there have been events in the past with more invasive approaches that took place before social media and 24-hour news channels. When I was a kid, we had several incidents in the Ozarks involving neo-nazi groups and survivalists. On two occasions a state trooper was shot and killed during a traffic stop. As part of the manhunt, authorities shut down highways and installed checkpoints that searched all vehicles. Nobody had a problem with it because we were fed up with these terrorists and wanted to take them down.

I'm all about freedom and civil liberties, but to me there is a huge difference between a a routine action or policy versus a one-time extraordinary event like this. I sincerely doubt we will see an action like this without an extraordinary circumstance.

[molson]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I sincerely doubt we will see an action like this without an extraordinary circumstance.

I agree, but even if a Joe Arpaio-type went nuts and actually shut down a city against the will of the people there and searched everyone's house to track down a shoplifting suspect or something, that wouldn't make Boston's response here wrong. Any type of law enforcement tactic can conceivably be misused by someone.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not singling anyone out on here, but what this really turns into most of the time is what side of the political fence your are on AND the result of what happened that causes the judgement for most people.

If there were no lockdown called and 30 people died, it would all come down to party lines. A dem would get shredded by reps, a rep would get shredded by dems. The other side would say "their" guy acted correctly and the results just didn't pan out.

I think when people lose the ability to say "the other side was right" or "Maybe this isn't what I would have done, but in hindsight it was a reasonable plan" we go down rabbit holes that we shouldn't be going down.

The response didn't seem poor in this case, things ended ok and the goal was achieved. I think Paul needs to back off here.

Love him or hate him Paul has always been pretty consistent. Whether it was Clinton and Waco or Bush and McCain and Guantanamo Bay he has always preached the same message. Now whether David Koresh or the blind Sheiek derserve to be defended is at your own judgement but Paul is rarely playing political games and is more pure Libertarian with very little grey area. (Again love it or hate it). His son on the other hand seems to often have his finger in the wind to see which way it's blowing. Only time will tell how it pans out for him but Ron Paul sure didn't seem to get far being consistent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

doesn't the constitution guarantee the states have the right to issue a shelter in place order?

Like with anything else, it guarantees only whatever the current reigning bunch of Supremes says it does.

(point being, that the only answer to your question seems to be "maybe")

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

* While the constitution prohibits unreasonable researches, is searching for an alleged terrorist without entering anyone's home or business an unreasonable search?

without getting into this debate, is this accurate?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

As part of the manhunt, authorities shut down highways and installed checkpoints that searched all vehicles. Nobody had a problem with it because we were fed up with these terrorists and wanted to take them down.

This is it on Boston.

I think this discussion is largely a result of people from other parts of the country considering the issue intellectually, versus what people in Boston were actually experiencing and thinking. Maybe it would be differnet in other parts of the country, though it's hard for me to imagine that--there was some asshole on the loose and everybody was willing to do their part to get rid of him.

It's funny because in a sense this is part of the sense of community conservatives want us to get back to, of local towns taking care of their own. Imagine this on a smaller scale, if there was someone loose in your neighborhood, would you stop to argue legality with police officers or would you cooperate with them and your neighbors to get this fucker caught and keep your family safe? It doesn't make us sheep, it makes us neighbors.

In a time of crisis people normally come together and figure out what needs to be done. If this was the result of some new federal terror reaction policy, that would be one thing. But this was just what people in Boston wanted to do because they wanted results. These are folk who started a war because someone taxed their tea. They don't fuck around.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Autumn

This is it on Boston.

I think this discussion is largely a result of people from other parts of the country considering the issue intellectually, versus what people in Boston were actually experiencing and thinking. Maybe it would be differnet in other parts of the country, though it's hard for me to imagine that--there was some asshole on the loose and everybody was willing to do their part to get rid of him.

It's funny because in a sense this is part of the sense of community conservatives want us to get back to, of local towns taking care of their own. Imagine this on a smaller scale, if there was someone loose in your neighborhood, would you stop to argue legality with police officers or would you cooperate with them and your neighbors to get this fucker caught and keep your family safe? It doesn't make us sheep, it makes us neighbors.

In a time of crisis people normally come together and figure out what needs to be done. If this was the result of some new federal terror reaction policy, that would be one thing. But this was just what people in Boston wanted to do because they wanted results. These are folk who started a war because someone taxed their tea. They don't fuck around.

Well said, and nicely pointed out Autumn.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I think this discussion is largely a result of people from other parts of the country considering the issue intellectually, versus what people in Boston were actually experiencing and thinking. Maybe it would be differnet in other parts of the country, though it's hard for me to imagine that--there was some asshole on the loose and everybody was willing to do their part to get rid of him.

It's funny because in a sense this is part of the sense of community conservatives want us to get back to, of local towns taking care of their own. Imagine this on a smaller scale, if there was someone loose in your neighborhood, would you stop to argue legality with police officers or would you cooperate with them and your neighbors to get this fucker caught and keep your family safe? It doesn't make us sheep, it makes us neighbors.

In a time of crisis people normally come together and figure out what needs to be done. If this was the result of some new federal terror reaction policy, that would be one thing. But this was just what people in Boston wanted to do because they wanted results. These are folk who started a war because someone taxed their tea. They don't fuck around.

As someone who lives 3 miles from the Arsenal mall, I disagree strongly with how people are characterizing Boston. There was no debate about the decision to impose the shelter in place order, and the majority of people who spent the day inside did so because they were obsessed with watching the Boston equivalent of the OJ chase and not out of any civic duty. Most people were too busy retweeting Boston Stong memes instead of actually going outside and enjoying life on a beautiful 75 degree day.

On a micro level, I don't have a problem with how it was handled because of the possibility that they had accomplices, but any honest accounting of the events shows that the shelter in place warning and huge police presence had zero effect on finding Dzokhar - and it can easily be argued it had a negative effect. On a macro level I think it was a terrible precedent and can only lead to bad things down the road. (I also think your 2nd paragraph is crazy. I've seen a situation on my summer island where everyone mobilized and banded together to find a crazy/creepy person. Boston two Friday's ago was nothing like that.)

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

without getting into this debate, is this accurate?

No. By all accounts the police went out of their way to talk to and reassure homeowners, but they definitely searched a few dozen residential properties.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

By issue I meant people bitching about it. I think, and of course I'm speaking generally, but most people in the area were extremely pleased with how everything was handled.

I think everyone was ecstatic with how things ended, and I certainly don't think anyone outside of the ACLU will complain now, but I do question the extent of the measures taken. I spent hours on the phone that day with friends who were terrified about family members in Watertown, and with friends from other parts of the country who wanted to "make sure I was ok because Boston was on lockdown", which was ludicrous because I was clearly never in any danger. Obviously things worked out, and no bad scenario happened, but even at the time I was saying it was an overreaction and the diffuse effect on 6 million was worse than the small chance that a few more people would die. It was one of those perfect spring days you drudge through 4 months of winter waiting for, and almost everyone in the area spent it inside either out of fear or voyeurism.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by panerd

I will cede this to the experts. So go ask the London police how they handled the IRA for all those years without shutting down the city or go to Isreal and ask how often Jerusalem is on lockdown. Point being, I think it can be done without as much firepower and without the lockdown. People keep saying look at the end result and I did. A homeowner found the guy in his boat, nothing to do with the searches of the houses or the excess of tank-like vechicles all over the city. I obviously wouldn't do nothing either but I think there is a middle ground.

Generally speaking the IRA had been at things for years and were far from amateur in their distribution and bomb making - the concentration for police in London was mainly on securing the area around a bomb (normally a 'block' or so in size) and disarming it or destroying it in a controlled explosion.

Actually catching the people involved in those cases are a secondary aim - I sat through quite a few such things back in the day and the concern was to get things sorted and everything back operating again .....

(its also worth remembering that London had these very regularly and after a while people simply fail to get overly excited about things, even when the 'norm' is something unusual .... my reaction to a station I was about to use being closed because of a bomb used to be 'oh ffs now I'll have to walk to a different station' rather than one of terror, the first time it happens you're nervous about it, second time bit less so etc. ..... similarly with the police I expect the first few such bombs had huge investigations to try and discover the person distributing it immediately, however considering the delay from distribution to activation involved after a while it was probably deemed pointless as they'd be far out of the area by the time the police were involved)

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Bishop, fair enough. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are the only one in the area that I've heard have that one. I live four miles from the Arsenal Mall, and two coworkers of mine live inside the search perimeter - we've all got bonifides here.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

On a micro level, I don't have a problem with how it was handled because of the possibility that they had accomplices, but any honest accounting of the events shows that the shelter in place warning and huge police presence had zero effect on finding Dzokhar - and it can easily be argued it had a negative effect. On a macro level I think it was a terrible precedent and can only lead to bad things down the road.

I disagree there. If there had been no massive police search moving through an otherwise deserted neighborhood would he have been holed up inside a boat scared to move? I don't think so. He would have moved with the crowds and been elsewhere.

(I also think your 2nd paragraph is crazy. I've seen a situation on my summer island where everyone mobilized and banded together to find a crazy/creepy person. Boston two Friday's ago was nothing like that.)No. By all accounts the police went out of their way to talk to and reassure homeowners, but they definitely searched a few dozen residential properties.

Did that crazy person have the sort of weaponry and explosives this guy had? Did he murder a cop and throw bombs at the police? My comparison was obviously just a metaphor, but my point is clearly it was well-equipped police and military personnel who needed to deal with this guy. Staying inside and Tweeting was exactly what was needed from the residents, not wandering around becoming hostages or casualties.