Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:05 AM Apr 2013

What scares me most about the bombing in Boston.

It's simple, I fear more erosion of civil liberties and privacy. Whether the attack was domestic or a lone wolf or Muslims or the IRA or the league of disgruntled hairdressers.

That's long been one of my major concerns regarding terrorism attacks. They, whoever they may be, win not only by inflicting pain, suffering and fear, but due to the reaction of our governments and the steps they deem "necessary" to keep us safe.

There is no way to keep us completely safe. There is no way to entirely prevent something like the event that occurred yesterday and the more Government strains to do so, the more repressive it becomes.

73 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What scares me most about the bombing in Boston. (Original Post) cali Apr 2013 OP
That was one of my first thoughts too. boston bean Apr 2013 #1
This worries me NOT at all. Follow Ben's advice- graham4anything Apr 2013 #2
Of course it doesn't bother you. You're rah rah on Gitmo cali Apr 2013 #5
President Obama & Eric Holder tried to have KSM tried in Manhaatan graham4anything Apr 2013 #6
It would be nice to be able to stop "all the bad guys" before they do their bad things, JDPriestly Apr 2013 #33
How? McV bought his goods, discussed it. Son of Sam did how many events? graham4anything Apr 2013 #39
Wwwooowwww progressoid Apr 2013 #50
Ever hear the friends and family OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #60
Private citizens don't need any gun or bullet. Reinterpret the 2nd with a new SCOTUS graham4anything Apr 2013 #61
Yes, let's take law abiders who have a gun for OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #63
A private citizen with a gun almost never protected anyone and causes far more innocent deaths graham4anything Apr 2013 #68
And it never saves lives when only the OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #70
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety pintobean Apr 2013 #7
He was drunk when he said that. egduj Apr 2013 #10
That means pintobean Apr 2013 #11
he was talking about private Zimmerman's with guns. graham4anything Apr 2013 #13
what the absolute fuck are you even talking about???? cali Apr 2013 #14
Security is a good thing. Say no to Zimmerman. graham4anything Apr 2013 #19
say no to sheep who will submit to anything in the name of security cali Apr 2013 #23
We agree to disagree. That is what a political discussion board is. We each can disagree. graham4anything Apr 2013 #25
No, you agree to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalala'. X_Digger Apr 2013 #47
hell fuckin' yeah! nt ProdigalJunkMail Apr 2013 #42
Agree! Katashi_itto Apr 2013 #59
No security is your answer? jambo101 Apr 2013 #66
no. and of course I didn't say or imply that. so why suggest that I did? cali Apr 2013 #67
He was talking about pintobean Apr 2013 #16
Ol' Ben must get a chuckle whenever that quote is repeated malthaussen Apr 2013 #29
tell it to Kristofferson who had enough of the Ron Paulies hijacking his statement graham4anything Apr 2013 #49
Another Franklin Quote el_bryanto Apr 2013 #12
I follow Ben's wisdom, too: Comrade Grumpy Apr 2013 #54
Teddy Roosevelt-talking about drones "Walk softly but carry a big stick" graham4anything Apr 2013 #58
Franklin wouldn't have said that about civil liberties: ohheckyeah Apr 2013 #56
He also said: bighart Apr 2013 #64
Ben Franklin also said something like 'they who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #65
graham4anything, I know you admire John Lindsay...... tpsbmam Apr 2013 #72
The knee-jerk reactions of some to impose more laws, more restrictions, more surveillance etc. is... slackmaster Apr 2013 #3
Yep.... zeemike Apr 2013 #28
Agreed. The national security state is already a failure--let's not encourage it. MindPilot Apr 2013 #4
That ship sailed a long time ago The2ndWheel Apr 2013 #8
You can be pretty sure that an explanatory narrative will be constructed about 'them' HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #9
Every right we had is gone with the Patriot Act. peace13 Apr 2013 #15
Voting for Ralph Nader gave us Bush. Actions=consequences. graham4anything Apr 2013 #20
Totally true! avebury Apr 2013 #21
What is amazing are those calling for that here on DU ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #31
You're the first to even approach a lesson being entirely missed. JayhawkSD Apr 2013 #17
I agree. We need to stop and realize that nobody is ever really safe. While sinkingfeeling Apr 2013 #18
I fear this was merely a trial run for something larger and more horrific in scale LonePirate Apr 2013 #22
Fear is the objective. zeemike Apr 2013 #30
There are how-to instructions on the damn internet on how to build homemade explosives Rozlee Apr 2013 #44
I worry about the Saber Rattlers get the red out Apr 2013 #24
There's no doubt that at the very least, big events like this will be compromised in some way. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #26
I keep thinking it happened in Warren's state. She's not on a lot of Christmas lists now. valerief Apr 2013 #27
That was my first thought on 9/11 as well primavera Apr 2013 #32
Bingo damnedifIknow Apr 2013 #34
it's already too late datasuspect Apr 2013 #35
Thats was my first thought at all. iandhr Apr 2013 #36
Since the Authorities admit that they had no inkling kenny blankenship Apr 2013 #37
My first thought: What a fine distraction from the Gun issues. AAO Apr 2013 #38
An constitutional scholar... awoke_in_2003 Apr 2013 #40
Even scarier Rocky888 Apr 2013 #41
Agreed. SoapBox Apr 2013 #43
After the shooting pipi_k Apr 2013 #45
So true. n/t JimDandy Apr 2013 #53
I'm afraid It will be used to drum Wolf Frankula Apr 2013 #46
Look, I'm from Boston and I'm not scared or panicked. Jasana Apr 2013 #48
Here's something I wrote and posted earlier today on that same subject . . . markpkessinger Apr 2013 #51
All security depends on physical security FarCenter Apr 2013 #52
Good point, a genuine serious concern. nt Zorra Apr 2013 #55
Can I ask what has changed in your neck of the woods since 9/11? All I ever hear bettyellen Apr 2013 #57
The Patriot Act still stands, indefininte detention is now fully sanctioned, morningfog Apr 2013 #62
I'm against the patriot act and our foreign policy in the middle east, was asking about the bettyellen Apr 2013 #69
I've been worrying about that too. ++++++ 100 Auntie Bush Apr 2013 #71
ITA and am happy to kick this a day later for visibility..... tpsbmam Apr 2013 #73

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
1. That was one of my first thoughts too.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:08 AM
Apr 2013

One of my other thoughts was about some of those off kilter live free or die types living one state away.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
2. This worries me NOT at all. Follow Ben's advice-
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:09 AM
Apr 2013

Ben Franklin said"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
5. Of course it doesn't bother you. You're rah rah on Gitmo
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:14 AM
Apr 2013

You've made it abundantly clear that the constitution means nothing whatsoever to you.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
6. President Obama & Eric Holder tried to have KSM tried in Manhaatan
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:23 AM
Apr 2013

Peter King and the other republicans made it impossible.

Put the blame where it belongs.

What does Gitmo have to do with anything? NOTHING at all but hyperbole politics.

McV and the Son of Sam should have been stopped before he did it.
With Today's security, both might have been stopped if there were all the cameras around...

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
33. It would be nice to be able to stop "all the bad guys" before they do their bad things,
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:54 AM
Apr 2013

but, how do you identify the "bad guys" before they do their "bad things"?

How do you tell a bad guy from a good guy if neither of them has done anything bad. They look just a like. They act the same. Suddenly one of them is bombing something or killing someone while the other is helping the victim of a car crash or rescuing a cat from a tree. Both are risk -takers. Either of them may be a loner or someone who runs around with people who have radical ideas or someone who is a risk taker and lives on the thrill. One becomes a marine or a firefighter or an EMT. The other becomes a mass murderer. And sometimes it's the marine or the firefighter or the EMT who does something despicable.

That's why we have human rights. Because we cannot predict human behavior. And sometimes the same person can do something abhorrent one day and something noble the next.

We have to judge people by their deeds. That is why we need civil rights, habeas corpus, a fair trial and procedures to insure that the rights of all people are respected.

Whether a person will do something beautiful or good or will do something evil -- who can say?

The cameras don't stop much. They just help the police catch people. By the time a deed has been videotaped, it has been done. The harm is suffered. Videotaping in public places is fine, but we have to be very careful about it. It really does invade privacy. Do you really want somebody watching a tape of you arguing with your kids in the supermarket over the candy they want at the check-out? Do you really want that argument you had with your wife or girlfriend after a tough day in the office made available to your local police?

There are two kinds of people. Those of us who put curtains on our windows and enjoy privacy, and those who live in houses with big picture windows, no curtains and the lights on at night so that you can see what they are doing. Which one is dangerous? You can't tell from the curtains or lack thereof.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
39. How? McV bought his goods, discussed it. Son of Sam did how many events?
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:33 AM
Apr 2013

A camera in the sky might have caught him going to the post office mailing the letter to Jimmy Breslin.
Might have caught him the first night
today might have taken the pix when he parked his car or left in his car afterward

And better security checks.
They did bomb checks 2x yesterday. Perhaps 5 were needed.

Perhaps 2 miles before, checks of everyone in the perimeter.

NYC ropes off Times Square New Years, you can't leave or reenter.

As they did the bomb checks, the person (this most likely was one extremist planted the first walked and planted the second either by cellphone or by a time device.

There are machines that have x-ray to see what is inside.

More needed.

Your examples are silly.
I use my c/c, the stores do have cameras, and if someonee is stealing something, damn right I will report it.
Stores have sales using their cards.
So what if they know I buy charmin. If I can save 3 bucks, I will use it.

In fact, I use zero cash except for $2 a week on the twice weekly lotto for fun.

100% of everything else is charged, and my car has ez pass and I pack a cell phone with me.

They already are watching.

Wave. If you are doing nothing wrong, no one cares

If it saves one person, it is worth it.

OwnedByCats

(805 posts)
60. Ever hear the friends and family
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 07:20 AM
Apr 2013

of people like Ted Bundy and Scott Peterson say how they couldn't believe they would commit murder because they were "nice normal guys"? If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that, I could probably buy a brand new car with the cash I saved up. You cannot jail, imprison or institutionalize people because you think they will commit a crime in the future. Most of the time you'll be lynching innocent people who would never do anything like that. That's just insanity and not the principles that our country was founded on. Read the 6th ammendment of the constitution. A person must be suspected and accused of a crime already commited, you can't go on prediction, assumption or simple gut feelings. If a family member, friend or psychiatric doctor expresses concern about someone they think might hurt people, it should be looked into. But presuming a person will be a murderer? Impossible to do without sectioning innocent people.

I'm curious as to what criteria you might use to determine a person will commit murder.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
61. Private citizens don't need any gun or bullet. Reinterpret the 2nd with a new SCOTUS
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 07:24 AM
Apr 2013

TB would have been caught sooner with today's security.

Getting rid of ALL guns/bullets from the hands of private people will stop all
guns/bullets from later being used

After all, all guns are born legal. All guns are also born to kill something or someone.
If they weren't bullets wouldn't be needed.

And a new SCOTUS is coming.
By the middle of Hillary's first term, the court will most likely be 6 to 3.
And there most likely will be more great justices like Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayer.

With a new court, comes a new reinterpretation.
Because after all, Heller was a reinterpretation.

BTW, the poison pen in the amendment of the current gun bill being argued might just be the vessel to achieve that quickly.
Somethingy about the state vs. federal that creates a consittutional crisis.

OwnedByCats

(805 posts)
63. Yes, let's take law abiders who have a gun for
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:40 AM
Apr 2013

protection away from them while the criminal element still use them and are very unlikely to turn them in. I have no problem with people having a gun for protection (and I'm not talking about assault weapons), I have no problem with background checks for anyone purchasing a gun, I have no problem with waiting periods and many of the laws we have and those to come - what I do have a problem with is telling a law abider with one gun for protection in their homes that they can't protect themselves while I can't effectively control the illegal population of guns carried around by criminals. If we could eliminate ALL guns from EVERYONE, criminals most especially, great! So how do we do it?

For ten years I lived in a country (Great Britain) that banned guns - as a matter of fact, the year I moved there was the year those bans went into effect. Their numbers of deaths/non-fatal gunshot wounds are lower than ours, but they were always a lot lower anyway even before the bans because the country is teeny tiny compared to ours. However it's still a far cry from having solved the gun issue even 15 years later. Their numbers didn't go down as much as they wanted. I still had to worry about getting shot. I never saw so many houses with home security systems in all my life as I did there. Maybe give them another 15 years and they might have made a bigger difference over time, but it's still unnerving to live in a place where guns were taken away but yet I still heard about gunshot wounds and deaths from them.

Then you take a country like Switzerland. A gun in practically every single home and they put countries with gun bans to shame with their low gun related crimes in comparison. I think more people commit suicide with guns there than us or other countries in Europe but let's face it. If a person is serious about suicide, they don't need a gun to do it.

I agree something needs to be done in regard to guns - but if you think everything will be fabulous once we take them from law abiders and you'll never hear about people dying from guns, you better think again. It's not as cut and dry as you think.

You think you can save everybody's life by banning this and banning that. The drug war proves we can't do shit about the people who are so sick with addiction that they will break the law to get what they feel they need. We still have 25 million+ people addicted to illicit drugs. It's not getting better. The only people who benefit are the dealers who make money hand over fist preying on people with an addiction. If we stopped the drug war, our gun deaths would go down quite a bit too because the dealers aren't afraid to use them if they have to. There are more constructive ways to deal with some problems and it doesn't always do so with a simple ban.

You didn't answer my question about what criteria you would use to determine a person will commit a murder and as you said "stop it before it happens". It's perfectly clear you don't care about preserving our constitution, at least the 6th amendment anyway. So let's "reinterpret" the 6th to what? "If the government believes a person will commit a crime in the future, the government has the right to preemptively hold those persons in custody at an institution of the government's choosing".



 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
68. A private citizen with a gun almost never protected anyone and causes far more innocent deaths
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:49 AM
Apr 2013

this is one of the biggest debunked NRA soundbytes.

If you put up a sticker on your house that there is a gun, then the perp won't go there.
However, someone innocent at 3am just might get caught in the haze of sleepiness.

OwnedByCats

(805 posts)
70. And it never saves lives when only the
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:46 PM
Apr 2013

criminals have guns. You don't want to answer my question - I guess that means you have no idea what you're talking about. You also won't address anything I've said and just brush it off as NRA taking points. Whatever. I want guns gone too, but I'm not naive enough to believe that this is easily done. You can't have criminals running amok with guns unchallenged.

And I don't know about you, but if I knew a homeowner had a gun, I wouldn't try my luck with that situation. Maybe some are stupid enough, but certainly not all.





 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
7. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:23 AM
Apr 2013

deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
13. he was talking about private Zimmerman's with guns.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:30 AM
Apr 2013

He was talking about Mr. Trayvon Martin when he said an "Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

MEANING, he was saying NO to guns/bullets in the hands of private persons to make them feel secure, but guns/bullets in the hands of private people never made anyone safer.

Mel Brooks set it correct- Kaos vs. Control (no typo there btw)

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
19. Security is a good thing. Say no to Zimmerman.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:37 AM
Apr 2013

Shooters and mass events are all the same.
All terrorize innocent people.

Innocent people in the vast majority want to be safe from the Zimmerman's and terrorists
and Columbine and CONN. school and the Gabbie Giffords asssassination attempt and kililng of the judge, and the kind meek doctor Tiller in the church and all the other events like the town halls.

Matters little if its politics or personal.
These events terrorize.

And almost all could be stopped and not let these people take away our freedom of free assembly and the right to life and liberty and pursuit of happiness.

When one is killed by one of these events, one loses their liberties.

Say no to political hyperbole and yes to having the freedom to assemble in a movie theatre, marathon, parade, town hall, supermarket, or just going to work like the regular people who died on 9-11 and Oklahoma City.

etc.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
25. We agree to disagree. That is what a political discussion board is. We each can disagree.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:46 AM
Apr 2013

If my house is on fire, I don't give a spit if the fireman(union worker) that comes is a republican democratic or tea party person.

All I want is the fire to be put out.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
47. No, you agree to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalalalala'.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:52 PM
Apr 2013

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countryman.

jambo101

(797 posts)
66. No security is your answer?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:22 AM
Apr 2013

Beefed up security is part of the world we live in, i can only imagine the carnage that would result if there were no checks,no security,no cameras.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
67. no. and of course I didn't say or imply that. so why suggest that I did?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:41 AM
Apr 2013

why engage in such bullshit? Just curious.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
29. Ol' Ben must get a chuckle whenever that quote is repeated
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:02 AM
Apr 2013

Considering the context in which it was made. It's a nice example of how a statement can have unintended meaning when the context is removed.

-- Mal

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
12. Another Franklin Quote
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:30 AM
Apr 2013

”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

I am thinking you are just futzing around.

Bryant

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
54. I follow Ben's wisdom, too:
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:12 AM
Apr 2013

"Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
58. Teddy Roosevelt-talking about drones "Walk softly but carry a big stick"
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:06 AM
Apr 2013

Remember-when #6 was attempting to leave the Village, #6 was a cool, handsome guy, right?
He also was a lifetime paid to kill asssasssin.
He was not an innocent. Cool as he was.

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
56. Franklin wouldn't have said that about civil liberties:
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:17 AM
Apr 2013
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

bighart

(1,565 posts)
64. He also said:
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:52 AM
Apr 2013

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
65. Ben Franklin also said something like 'they who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:14 AM
Apr 2013

freedom or safety'.

Anyone who is that fearful and cowardly should be ignored.

'Land of the free, home of the brave'. We sure have proven we are neither haven't we?

tpsbmam

(3,927 posts)
72. graham4anything, I know you admire John Lindsay......
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:52 PM
Apr 2013

how do you reconcile this post with the following quote from his 1969 book, "The City."

"Those who suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order."

Just curious. I also know a fair amount about Lindsay and I highly doubt that, given the context and the concerns voice in the OP, he'd agree with you here.

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
3. The knee-jerk reactions of some to impose more laws, more restrictions, more surveillance etc. is...
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:12 AM
Apr 2013

...a classic example of what is called functional fixedness in the psych world.

There is something much deeper going on than people abusing their liberty. Something at the core is rotting.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
28. Yep....
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:00 AM
Apr 2013

But to speak it openly is to be labeled a nut and attacked as a CTer...
Everything is just as they tell us it is...and don't bring that up is the rule.

 

MindPilot

(12,693 posts)
4. Agreed. The national security state is already a failure--let's not encourage it.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:14 AM
Apr 2013

We have already given up a bunch of rights in exchange for security. And that apparently has not worked out very well.

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)
8. That ship sailed a long time ago
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:25 AM
Apr 2013

Is it worth being scared about it at this point? It's going to happen. As long as the energy required to do it is there, it's pretty much inevitable. Just like a bomb going off in a major city.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
9. You can be pretty sure that an explanatory narrative will be constructed about 'them'
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:26 AM
Apr 2013

It doesn't have to be true to be useful. It just needs to become widely established.

At that point, with a target population in sight, steps will be taken to minimize the risks from 'them'.

The boundaries around the 'precautions' that will be put in place will be determined by the narrative that becomes dominant and by how fearful and paranoid are the serious people making decisions.

We have many hundreds of people in security agencies who are professional paranoids. They will, of course, push for laws and regulations which make it easier for them to 'protect' us.










 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
15. Every right we had is gone with the Patriot Act.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:33 AM
Apr 2013

Gone, done, did in. The 'authorities' have a right to search and hold indefinitely anyone they choose. They do not even have to admit they are holding you! Please tell me what more they can do to us.

The Bill of Rights has been taken from the people all while they sat and watched reality shows!
When will the citizens wake up and realize just what was taken from them so many years ago!

Fear no more. Today is no different than yesterday or the day before! You have been a prisoner for quite some time now.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
20. Voting for Ralph Nader gave us Bush. Actions=consequences.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:40 AM
Apr 2013

btw, all those things were done in the past before the Patriot Act and would be done without them.They just called them something else.

don't like a bad President abusing them? Don't elect Jeb Bush.

Do you think "authority" didn't do that?
What about the Japanese after Pearl Harbor?

What about the slaves? They were held with zero rights.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson said only those that looked like him were equal.

avebury

(10,946 posts)
21. Totally true!
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:41 AM
Apr 2013

There is no doubt that yesterday's incident will be used to continue the erosion of our rights.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
17. You're the first to even approach a lesson being entirely missed.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:33 AM
Apr 2013

That lesson from yesterday being that taking off our shoes at airports, and all of the inconvenience and indignity which accompanies that, is an exercise in futility. Safety is illusion. It is even more illusory when you try to protect against that which has already happened.

The famous quote about safety and liberty should read, "A nation which would surrender any liberty in pursuit of a little safety is utterly stupid, for it gives up something precious in pursuit of that which does not exist."

sinkingfeeling

(51,279 posts)
18. I agree. We need to stop and realize that nobody is ever really safe. While
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:36 AM
Apr 2013

the actions of yesterday are tragic, about the same number of people are shot every day in this country. Yet the governments will refuse to do anything about that.

Rozlee

(2,529 posts)
44. There are how-to instructions on the damn internet on how to build homemade explosives
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 12:31 PM
Apr 2013

like grenades, rocket launchers, missiles and every kind of ordnance imaginable. That's how the insurgents in Iraq got to us. They had their own Anarchist Cookbook at their fingertips and their own garages and kitchens were their assembly plants. That's the first thing I thought when I heard about the nails and other shrapnel embedded in the explosives. If it's a foreign group, I'm surprised they haven't claimed credit for it, though. They love releasing videos and beating their chests. But, foreign or domestic, getting one's hands on explosives isn't hard. Even mixing together ingredients for sarin and growing aflatoxin isn't too challenging, although methods of dispersal might be. Some subway riders in Tokyo might not agree with that last assessment, though.

get the red out

(13,459 posts)
24. I worry about the Saber Rattlers
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:43 AM
Apr 2013

I am afraid of the media giving them more voice than they should, depending on the outcome of the investigation.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
26. There's no doubt that at the very least, big events like this will be compromised in some way.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:52 AM
Apr 2013

A marathon is a huge, vulnerable event. If someone is determined to cause problems, it will be tough to prevent. Some venues may end up cancelling their races. It would be a sad consequence.

valerief

(53,235 posts)
27. I keep thinking it happened in Warren's state. She's not on a lot of Christmas lists now.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:58 AM
Apr 2013

Anthrax anyone?

Just more speculation in the speculation pool.

primavera

(5,191 posts)
32. That was my first thought on 9/11 as well
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:53 AM
Apr 2013

And, let's be honest, the fear has been amply justified. I'm also wondering what innocent country we'll invade this time.

 

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)
35. it's already too late
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:02 AM
Apr 2013

our civil liberties and privacy are pretty much gone by now.

if you stay in line you can keep going to work and paying your debts. you can still take a road trip. etc.

step out of line: woo boy.

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
36. Thats was my first thought at all.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:28 AM
Apr 2013

My first thought was for my friends who are Bostonians. They are all okay.

kenny blankenship

(15,689 posts)
37. Since the Authorities admit that they had no inkling
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:29 AM
Apr 2013

that something like this was going to happen, despite a universally invasive surveillance regime that already listens to everything, records everything and infiltrates any citizen group on the basis of no probable causes besides state paranoia, this could be the moment when they conclude that it's futile to set up a police state, that neither perfect impunity nor perfect security are possible and the more you pursue the first , the further the second recedes from view, and therefore, at long last, they decide to leave us alone.

Or, alternately, they may decide that spying on everyone everywhere all the time is insufficient, and so now they have to go ahead with the chip implantation idea...

 

AAO

(3,300 posts)
38. My first thought: What a fine distraction from the Gun issues.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:33 AM
Apr 2013

LaPierre couldn't have asked for a better distraction.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
40. An constitutional scholar...
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:33 AM
Apr 2013

renewed the Patriot Act with nary a whisper- yes, civil rights will continue to erode.

Rocky888

(297 posts)
41. Even scarier
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:36 AM
Apr 2013

The bankers have bankrupted our cities and counties to the point of laying off our first responders and law enforcement. The media keeps up the "how can we keep our people safe in open air events"? What better way to justify bringing in these large mercenary security firms that are no longer needed in Iraq and Afghanistan "to keep us safe". And keep pumping billions into the hands of the big super pac donors.

pipi_k

(21,020 posts)
45. After the shooting
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 12:50 PM
Apr 2013

in Newtown, CT, I saw a lot of people expressing their intent to home school their kids. Because, in their minds, violence only happens in schools.

One of my stepdaughters thought that way. Her dad talked sense into her. Violence can happen anywhere. And it doesn't have to come at the point of a gun.

I see the pro-gun crowd on Facebook posting stuff about how we should all be able to carry concealed weapons. What...so we can shoot anyone who looks suspicious??

I see the anti-gun crowd going on about gun deaths. OK fine. Take away every single gun in the US. Some nut will still find a way to injure/kill lots of people.

Anyway. Yeah. Every time something like this happens, I can see/envision more and more restrictions on our daily lives.

It's pretty similar to how an agoraphobic lives. Panic attack in this place...oh, I won't go there anymore.

Panic attack in another place. Well I won't go to that place anymore.

Pretty soon your world shrinks and you can't even leave your own house because you want to be "safe" from attacks.

At some point the panic attacks happen at home, too. So the illusion of "safety" means absolute shit.

That's what is happening to us because of reactions to violence in our society.

Sad and very scary.



Wolf Frankula

(3,595 posts)
46. I'm afraid It will be used to drum
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:39 PM
Apr 2013

up support for an attack on Iran. After all, Exxon needs Iran's oil. They're funny looking mooslim furriners. Exxon needs Iran's oil. They'll greet us with flowers and all convert to the Church of the Fightin' Amurkan Jesus. Exxon needs Iran's oil. They can't fight. And so on from the nutcase right. (Is there any other kind?)

Wolf

Jasana

(490 posts)
48. Look, I'm from Boston and I'm not scared or panicked.
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:56 PM
Apr 2013

I'm just going to go on with life as usual. If I don't "they" win. To hell with "them." All I know is that I don't want to see my rights eroded even further so I understand the OP's concern.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
52. All security depends on physical security
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:27 PM
Apr 2013

You have to know who is inside your perimeter, and that they are dependable, responsible, reliable allies.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
57. Can I ask what has changed in your neck of the woods since 9/11? All I ever hear
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:52 AM
Apr 2013

about is an extra 5 minutes and shoe removal at the airport. Anyone I know who loves to travel still does.
NYC has more security in certain areas, but I don't hear people here bitching about it. Mostly we're glad it's there.
The bomb sniffing dogs I saw on the way home from work didn't bother anyone at all. That's how it is at WTC.
I'm glad you guys are going through screening coming to NYC. You would if you lived here too.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
62. The Patriot Act still stands, indefininte detention is now fully sanctioned,
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 07:27 AM
Apr 2013

we have a policy of pre-emption in which we regularly bomb multiple countries, killing hundreds. Drug sniffing dogs in school halls, it goes on. It is far more than removing your shoes.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
69. I'm against the patriot act and our foreign policy in the middle east, was asking about the
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:22 AM
Apr 2013

practical every day intrusions in Cali's life.
Sorry, but the people I hear yapping loudly about taking off their shoes don't like traveling anyway. The people I hear complaining about bomb sniffing dogs are not near anywhere that has faced actual danger.
Larger cities do require more government to run them and keep them safe, it is part of the bargain you make for living here.
It seems people who live in NE hamlets and flyover cities- the same states that were clamoring for war after 9/11 mind you (when NYers decidedly were not) are the ones wishing it would all go away now.
The war woops weren't coming from the big liberal cities that actually do need increased security. So, not sorry if it's an extra 5 minutes if you want to fly here. But we weren't the idiots demanding instant war. The need for better airport security is a real thing for us, much as it isn't for most of the country.

tpsbmam

(3,927 posts)
73. ITA and am happy to kick this a day later for visibility.....
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:55 PM
Apr 2013

it's a realistic concern based on US history, certainly since 2001 and including the current President.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What scares me most about...