"Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston" Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk 4/29/2013

sailingaway

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
72,103
what's the best 'martial law in Boston' picture we have? I want to put it on the front page....

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.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:

“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”
Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.


Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

http://the-free-foundation.org/tst4-29-2013.html
 
ShelterinPlacesigninBostoncourtesyjconline.com_.jpeg

Boston-martial-law2b.jpg

Boston-martial-law-deserted4.jpg

Boston-martial-law8.jpg

Boston-martial-law6.jpg


I'm trying to find one picture that sums it up more.....

http://www.infowars.com/battlefield...aw-declared-in-boston-pics-from-the-war-zone/
 
well, I'll put this up as a placeholder, if someone has a 'medley' picture showing a bunch of the scenes that would be great.

295771_526411280760184_1372638736_n.jpg
 
Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston

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.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:

“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Ron Paul
http://the-free-foundation.org/tst4-29-2013.html
 


I like this Ron Paul song, from 2008 "Don't spread freedom with the barrel of a gun", it is apt here, particularly the 'you can keep your freedom, give me back my liberties' part....
 
Last edited:
The only part I MIGHT disagree with is the emphasis placed on forced searches, etc. Julie Borowski and Amash were both tweeting asking for residents' experiences and it was not really as bad as Ron described. All house searches were optional, etc.
 
The only part I MIGHT disagree with is the emphasis placed on forced searches, etc. Julie Borowski and Amash were both tweeting asking for residents' experiences and it was not really as bad as Ron described. All house searches were optional, etc.

But some were not, so the 'ALL' in your statement is incorrect, as I understand it. There were pictures on twitter of some who DIDN'T 'opt' to let them search 'voluntarily' being pulled out of their houses at gun point.
 
What's the difference? In this case, I mean? This wasn't a hurricane they risked if they went outside, it was troops.

Apparently they did become the same thing. They could have announced that they were holding a "fire drill" or "hurricane alert". Those would have been just as (in)appropriate as "shelter in place".

One of the instructions you may be given in an emergency where hazardous materials may have been released into the atmosphere is to shelter-in-place. This is a precaution aimed to keep you safe while remaining indoors. (This is not the same thing as going to a shelter in case of a storm.) Shelter-in-place means selecting a small, interior room, with no or few windows, and taking refuge there.

http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m4340182_shelterinplace.pdf

Clearly, “shelter in place” is not appropriate for the situation of a manhunt. It is specifically intended for hazardous air-born dangers. Has the definition of “shelter in place” changed? As used during the Boston manhunt, “shelter in place” morphed into something more akin to martial law. Is this an example of a slippery slope? A misuse or expansion of power?
 
Back
Top