a right is something you can do, not something you must do

personal discretion is not written off with 'rights'

A right is something someone else should not deprive you of by force! Which is basically what they did.

They should have at least ASKED PERMISSION TO ENTER AND SEARCH.

THEY DID NOT do that.

They ordered people to put their hands on their heads and to exit their homes while they searched.

they didn't NEED permission,, there was extigent circumstances,,,,

if someone holds me hostage in my home, should they have to stop and ask me politely before coming through to try and protect me?

its called discretion,,,,,if they threw people on the ground, or hit or abused them, that would be one thing

put your hands on your head and step out, seems a pretty reasonable request in such an event when potential accomplices are unknown.....

and as someone else noted,, it seems like bostonites were pretty relieved with the job tat was done in capturing the threat,,,,,

Wrong. Unless they had reason to believe a terrorist was in their home, there were no exigent circumstances.



That's a matter of perspective. Appearances are not always what they seem.

And as I said before, just because it "seems" like they were relieved with the job that was done does not make it proper or legal to do house to house searches.

Using excuses like " exigent circumstances" to violate people's constitutional rights is just the beginning of a police state. And if no one complains about it, then it soon becomes routine because sheeple have accepted it.

And when citizens are wimps and don't object, it gives the authorities one more inch towards getting people to accept a police state.

when is 'soon' because extigent circumstances have circumvented warrants for decades,,,,,,

and sometimes things aren't as they seem but sometimes they are JUST as they seem


so we all continue to believe what we choose and discard the rest,,,

Yard cat No. 1 "Did you see were we were on the list?!"
Yard cat No. 2 "No chit!"

Exigent circumstances have been used for decades, yes, I know, and they have also been abused. It is also very much an opinion of what might be "exigent circumstances."

They are abused because they are not carefully scrutinized or questioned. If a cop abuses a person's rights and nobody questions that, or complains they will tend to keep doing it.

The public is the only oversight left anymore. If the people don't question these things, then they accept them as normal and one day they will wake up and discover that police will storm your house any time they are looking for any fugitive... not just a terrorist, using their "excuse."

There are lots of fugitives out there. That does not give the cops the right to search every house they claim they think he might be hiding in.

If this becomes normal practice, they will abuse this until the freedom from unreasonable search is a completely useless idea. We will have no freedom from unreasonable searches because they use an excuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GcxmAunB4Ck#

Wow!

I guess if you are EVER asked to participate in a 'drill' you should run like a rabbit.

Who are the real terrorists?

I thought they were crude and rude in their search tactics
But i also considered that they may be afraid the bomber was holding hostages in their own home
And that being why they were so forceful in evacuating the houses
To be searched for him ?
If he had a gun to the back of someones head they would not be able to expose the fact that he was there in their home ?
They took much risk in trying to "Flush him out"
And for both the folks who's homes were searched
And themselves as well ?
Maybe i am just country dumb.....
JMHO
Those were EXTREME circumstances for sure...

I think Ron Paul hit the nail on the head in a recent piece he published on Lew Rockwell's site. Check it out:

Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

Paul also pointed out that the suspect was discovered by a private citizen, and not by "paramilitary troops terrorizing the public"" ?something we should keep in mind the next time they try something like this.

And make no mistake about it, it will happen again.

What took place in Boston set a very unsettling precedent because it detailed, for the entire world to see, that in the United States, your Constitutional and can become irrelevant at any given moment.

And with crowds of Bostonians demonstrating their willingness to have their rights violated in times of crisis "as determined by some group of random bureaucrats" the government got the message that such action is not only acceptable, but desired.

Make no mistake about it; all those folks who have survived brutal communist regimes are looking at this event now as an unsettling reminder of how easy it is to go from free citizen... to commodity slave.

Now, understand I don't say this in an attempt to scare you or make you feel uneasy. Instead, I write these words in an effort to call your attention to the under-publicized events that are facilitating the end of our once great democracy.

Because as Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Not really. More people die from bee stings and allergies to peanut butter than terrorism.

There WAS A PAR MILITARY DRILL IN PROGRESS before the bombs ever went off.

This was another false flag to further the interest of the government to transform freedom into a dictatorship.

Millions of dollars of the citizens tax money is being spent on the so-called "war on terror." Just like the fictional "war on drugs" it is pure bull crap.

The "war on terror" has to be kept alive in order to justify the money spent, and the taking away of our freedom.

You can expect more of the same in the future.

Bills are now being passed that will allow the government to read your on line emails like gmail etc. to start with.

Will Illegal searches at gunpoint and lock-downs of entire neighborhoods or cities become routine? Will we start seeing drones and tanks in our neighborhoods?

You bet you will!

Stop allowing your rights and freedoms to be taken away! Stop listening to their excuses. Stop being terrorized.

Those that give away their freedoms for safety and security, deserve neither and in the end will have neither.

Actually the government has been reading email for quite some time. The bill currently in congress gives them more power to do so with out consent. Loom at the recent articles in the main stream media about the FBI and the IRS for starters. Then look at the complex being built in Nevada for information storage, calls and internet activity.

those who would rather die than live to fight for their liberties another day,, deserve to get their wish,,,,

Except one day you won't have your liberties anymore! The more we keep allowing more and more encroachments on them the less we have. We are slowly killing ourselves and we don't even know we're doing it. If we don't fight for them now, one day they will all be gone and so will we be.

One has to draw a line at some point if they care the least bit about their rights, to not is to consent to giving them over. We need to stop consenting.

A RIGHT is something no Majority or Government has the right to infringe on!
Right are not bestowed upon the Citizen by Government!
They are inherent in the Individual!


The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule. -Friedrich August von Hayek