where "url" is the web address of the image. You have to put the image url in quotes, or it won't work.
If you have it on your computer, you need to upload it to a photo sharing site and then get a link to it, and then use that link as your url.
Posted on 04/28/2013 11:02:26 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
Thomas Lucente: American liberty died in Boston where it was born
By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr. tlucente@limanews.com 419-993-2095
The American liberty movement, with little argument, was pretty much born and nurtured in the environs of Boston. And that is apparently where it died.
In what can only be called the Siege of Watertown, the government essentially declared martial law in the Massachusetts town, put thousands of law-abiding Americans under house arrest and went from house to house frisking and searching homes while pointing automatic weapons at Americans. All to arrest a single teenager.
In the end, the terrorists won. America lost.
True, the dastardly crime of which the teenager is accused was vicious. Also true, the capture of the perpetrators was an important goal.
Still, in the end, it was just a crime. It certainly did not warrant the behavior of the police and military in the conduct of its “manhunt.”
A house-to-house search to hunt down a criminal is an egregious abuse of power. Your constitutional rights are more important than the capture of a criminal, even a terrorist.
Yes, the lockdown was, on its face, voluntary. But tell that to the men in black body armor wielding machine guns and tanks as they treated the public as suspects, sources of interference or targets for displays of governmental authority. Can you really give informed consent with an M16 in your face? Having had the business end of an M16 pointed at me by a government agent before, I know the answer.
The police narrative is the residents were fully cooperating with the lockdown and house-to-house search. Yet, videos taken by residents show this was not the case.
While the video of soldiers with tanks, attack helicopters and machine guns patrolling an American town and searching door-to-door was disturbing enough, the lack of an outcry from those outside the area of operations is even more disturbing.
Where, for example, is the outrage of the tea party? I am pretty sure the Sons of Liberty, the Boston group who, in 1773, destroyed 342 chests of tea by dumping them in Boston Harbor during the original Tea Party, would not have stood idly by and let government troops conduct a house-to-house search while placing the town under a form of house arrest.
Does anyone doubt Samuel Adams, if alive today, would be vehemently protesting the government’s actions?
When British soldiers murdered five innocent Americans and injured others three years before the Tea Party, did Bostonians run and cower in their homes? No, they stood their ground and only dispersed after being assured there would be a legitimate investigation into what we call today the Boston Massacre.
Then, a leading patriot and lawyer, who was deeply involved in the liberty movement, agreed to defend the soldiers to ensure a fair trial.
That lawyer, John Adams, wrote three years later: “The Part I took in Defence of … the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety. … It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently.”
Adams’ defense of those soldiers is the epitome of what it means to live in a free country. Despite being the enemy and despite the heinousness of the crime, they still deserved a fair trial that complied with all the rules.
Compare that with the government’s actions after Tsarnaev was arrested. The FBI was upset that he was read his rights and allowed to consult with an attorney.
Those defending the tyrannical actions of the government during the occupation of Watertown argue the government should be able to do whatever is necessary to protect the people, even suspending civil rights.
There is a thin line between that kind of thinking and concentration camps, as I’m sure thousands of Japanese-Americans from the 1940s could attest.
However, and this there can be no denying, there is no “public safety” exception to the Constitution.
Do constitutional protections make it harder for law enforcement officials to do their jobs? Certainly.
Civil rights are easy to protect when things are fine; however, they are most important during times of peril and should never be pushed aside, especially not at the point of a government gun.
Thomas J. Lucente Jr. is a veteran of the Iraq war, has a bachelor’s degree in history and a law degree from the University of Toledo. He has been published in newspapers, magazines and websites across the country. He can be heard on “Talk with Ron Williams” on WCIT-AM at 3 p.m. Thursdays (listen at http://940wcit.com). Readers may write to him at The Lima News, 3515 Elida Road, Lima, Ohio 45807-1538, or e-mail him at tlucente@limanews.com. His telephone number is 800-686-9924, ext. 2095, or 419-993-2095. Visit his blog at http://www.lucente.org. Follow him on Twitter at http://tho.lu/twitter, Google Plus at http://tho.lu/google, and Facebook at http://tho.lu/facebook.
where "url" is the web address of the image. You have to put the image url in quotes, or it won't work.
If you have it on your computer, you need to upload it to a photo sharing site and then get a link to it, and then use that link as your url.
img src="URL">
except put a < in front of img.
That is called "articulable grounds for suspicion", and a cop has to have them to have probable cause for a search or seizure. Still have to have a warrant, except in exigent circumstances.
Makes sense, thanks. The cases I saw had exigent circumstances plus hunches or items in public view or public hearing, so no warrant.
This is not all that they knew. I'm unsure of the series of events after the bombing, but Watertown police were undoubtedly very much aware of the carnage in Boston from televised news reports, also that a police officer had been killed on the MIT campus, and that a resident had phoned in concerning evidece of an injured trespasser. It's not like the only information that they had about some bomber was unexpectedly phoned in from an anonymous caller.
So with all due respect Defiant, you seem to be in denial of the series of tragic events which prompted Watertown police to react the way that they did.
As a side note, as I had mentioned in another post, Bill of Right's prohibitions on government powers did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was ratified.
By your logic, all of Chicago should be locked down, and a house to house search conducted.
We were all aware of the bombing in Boston, and that these guys killed a cop. That didn't make the searches reasonable or legally justified. That made a police presence in the community justified, and it may have justified a search that included visits to the front door of homes in that area, in the manner I described. Without any information that the bomber was in a particular house, there was no justification for forced entry into any houses, and especially for frisking the occupants. It was disgusting.
The fourth amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, nor shall warrant issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Our criminal law professor in law school, a lib, made us memorize this amendment. You may have your opinion about what it says, or what our policy should be in connection with a terrorist bombing in which 3 people were killed and dozens injured, but your opinion does not change the text or history of the 4th amendment. It does not allow what the police did in Watertown, and I am surprised that someone here would think it could.
Even in leftist California, when Dorner was running around in the mountains, the cops didn't do this to people. They respectfully went up to their cabins and checked for suspicious circumstances or odd behavior by the homeowners. They didn't treat them like foreign combatants. The people of Watertown were treated in the way the John Kerry described Iraqi jihadis being treated.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Not only does Wikipedia show that Chicago has a population under 3 million, Watertown over 30,000, but Chicago is arguably a war zone anyway. In other words, your neighbors in Watertown know when you sneeze. Chicago residents, on the other hand, probably hearing gunfire coming from all directions 24/7 and are probably somewhat desensitized to it.
Also, let's say Chicago law enforcement authorities have "all the time in the world" to obtain search warrants. So why isn't the constitutional process stopping street warfare in Chicago?
I think your heart is in the right place, but I am glad that the law does not agree with you—yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.