Explosion at Boston Marathon *NSFW IMAGES*

[theyarecomingforyou]

BBC News:

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said Boston would be "open" on Tuesday but that there would be "a heightened law enforcement presence".

"There will be random checks of backpacks and other parcels. We are also asking that everyone be on a state of heightened vigilance," he said.

What's the legality of that from a civil rights perspective? It's one thing to deploy sniffer dogs on the streets if there is the possibility of further attacks but it strikes me as a huge invasion of privacy to search backpacks and parcels at random, especially when we know it's not going to be random. Does anyone really think the police are going to search through the bags of pensioners or are they going to target Muslims and white supremacists?

[presence06]

BBC News:

What's the legality of that from a civil rights perspective? It's one thing to deploy sniffer dogs on the streets if there is the possibility of further attacks but it strikes me as a huge invasion of privacy to search backpacks and parcels at random, especially when we know it's not going to be random. Does anyone really think the police are going to search through the bags of pensioners or are they going to target Muslims and white supremacists?

The authorities have stated they will/have taken all backpacks and bags left behind as "evidence" and will search through them. They've heightened security at major cities and areas. They could enlist TSA at major events..and who says they won't?

[Mr. Gibs]

They could enlist TSA at major events..and who says they won't?

Oh that's just great...because you know the TSA have such an amazing track record.

Oh wait they fail their own tests 90%+ of the time most recent one being: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/tsa-fails-undercover-inspector-sneaks-mock-bomb-ne/

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

^ Not been following the thread, I take it? :p

I have not either, so can someone summarize it who has? I have an ear infection so my tolerance for going through posts is at a pretty low point, and I tried and read some pretty off kilter comments, so I would love to hear why what could just be a random person watching from a rooftop is suspicious. And note, I am not saying they very well could not be suspicious, just saying it could just be someone getting a birds eye view of the marathon itself.

[presence06]

Great because you know the TSA has such a great track record.

Oh wait they fail their own tests 90%+ of the time most recent one being: http://www.washingto...s-mock-bomb-ne/

Exactly. But the people want to feel safe so why not bring them in to "protect"? The DoHS is talking highly of themselves to convince people they are protected... never let a disaster go unused.

[gameboy1977]

I suspect it was North Korea maybe?

[FloatingFatMan]

I suspect it was North Korea maybe?

.. No, just no. What possible reason could NK have for something like this? It would completely compromise the legitimacy and recognition they're trying to achieve with all their saber rattling.

[Guth]

The dude on the roof was confirmed as event security.

[Tuishimi]

It wasn't NK... It was either some disgruntled person or persons (angry with the gov't) or a local terrorist cell from some foreign group. The fact that no one has "claimed" it yet leads me to think the former is more likely. Claims from the likes of al-qaeda don't usually take long to surface.

Boston was targeted as being lax in the 2001 attacks. The BM is a beloved event there (I grew up in Boston - my place of employment is still up there) and this will have some lasting, ripple effects.

[edit]

For those who DON'T know... yesterday was Patriots Day in Boston. It's a local holiday (I actually had off from work). So this was planned for good (well you know what I mean) effect on the run of the BM and with lots of people out and about on the holiday.

[FloatingFatMan]

Boston was targeted as being lax in the 2001 attacks. The BM is a beloved event there (I grew up in Boston - my place of employment is still up there) and this will have some lasting, ripple effects.

The only way to truly defeat terrorism is to carry on as normal. It's a lesson we in the UK understood well back in the 70's and 80's at the height of the IRA's bombings, but we seem to have forgotten it in the wake of religious extremist terrorism. :(

[articuno1au]

The only way to truly defeat terrorism is to carry on as normal. It's a lesson we in the UK understood well back in the 70's and 80's at the height of the IRA's bombings, but we seem to have forgotten it in the wake of religious extremist terrorism. :(

I thoroughly agree with this.

I don't think many American politicians realise that they lost by responding they way they did..

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

The only way to truly defeat terrorism is to carry on as normal. It's a lesson we in the UK understood well back in the 70's and 80's at the height of the IRA's bombings, but we seem to have forgotten it in the wake of religious extremist terrorism.

I had this conversation earlier... Spot on!

[Tuishimi]

The only way to truly defeat terrorism is to carry on as normal. It's a lesson we in the UK understood well back in the 70's and 80's at the height of the IRA's bombings, but we seem to have forgotten it in the wake of religious extremist terrorism. :(

I remember those well (from afar) and they were terrible times. :( It seems like an IRA bombing was in the news at least once/week in the '70s.

[Mr. Gibs]

The only way to truly defeat terrorism is to carry on as normal. It's a lesson we in the UK understood well back in the 70's and 80's at the height of the IRA's bombings, but we seem to have forgotten it in the wake of religious extremist terrorism. :(

Pretty much this. Our politicians may like to claim we've defeated terrorism by killing OBL, by invading Iraq, by bringing those responsible to justice etc etc

And sure we may have done all of those, but in reality the terrorists won a long time ago. We live in fear of the next attack, have given up some of our civil liberties in exchange for "security", the TSA, spent trillions on two wars and in reality we're not really any safer...just more afraid.

The only thing 9/11 proved is that a bunch of moronic ****heads could bring the worlds largest economic and military power to a halt (and into a state of extreme fear) in a couple of hours.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I don't think many American politicians realise that they lost by responding they way they did..

Exactly. People were united in solidarity behind the United States after 9/11, yet the response?invading Iraq and Afghanistan; implementing the Patriot Act; illegal detention at Guantanamo Bay; the CIA's use of extraordinary rendition and torture, etc?turned the international community against it. That's why people are observing how the US responds to the Boston Marathon Bombing, both in terms of media coverage and the reaction from politicians and law enforcement.

Already we've seen a lot of misinformation from the media - for instance, it was confirmed by Reuters that "no additional explosive devices have been discovered other than the two that detonated" and that there have only been three confirmed fatalities, not the twelve fatalities reported by the New York Post. And as mentioned earlier, the police will be searching bags and parcels at random - something that seems to contravene civil liberties. The initial indications are not good.

Terrorists succeed when society compromises its values.

[presence06]

^^ Stepped up patrols with guards, bomb sniffing dogs, check points. Major cities and major events rethinking their security, major cities on alert. This is what they want/ed and it's what they got. Now they have us living in fear again. And we we are scared, we look at the Government to help. And or, accept what new laws/regulations/restrictions are put on the table.

?They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.?

Ben Franklin

[jerzdawg]

^^ Stepped up patrols with guards, bomb sniffing dogs, check points. Major cities and major events rethinking their security, major cities on alert. This is what they want/ed and it's what they got. Now they have us living in fear again. And we we are scared, we look at the Government to help. And or, accept what new laws/regulations/restrictions are put on the table.

?They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.?

Ben Franklin

I am not sure I fully understand you. Increased security at large events is exactly what should happen, why do you look at it as fear instead of precautionary? Terrorists look for opportunities to cause the most destruction (high populated areas). People still attend huge events, people still fly in airplanes, etc. Sure alot of things changed after 9/11 as far as security but how is that any different than a company who gets hacked adding additional security for the future? Just looking to get your perspective.

[gameboy1977]

I am sure that FBI will use thier special agent dogs will smell to find right criminal.

[HawkMan]

The only way to truly defeat terrorism is to carry on as normal. It's a lesson we in the UK understood well back in the 70's and 80's at the height of the IRA's bombings, but we seem to have forgotten it in the wake of religious extremist terrorism. :(

which is kind if weird, since the IRA had a lot more bombings and a lot more successful than the extremists today. heck has there even been a successful Muslim extremist terrorist attack on British soil ? which is even weirder since the muslim extremist are willing to sacrifice themselves, the IRA preferred living to bomb another day.

[presence06]

I am not sure I fully understand you. Increased security at large events is exactly what should happen, why do you look at it as fear instead of precautionary? Terrorists look for opportunities to cause the most destruction (high populated areas). People still attend huge events, people still fly in airplanes, etc. Sure alot of things changed after 9/11 as far as security but how is that any different than a company who gets hacked adding additional security for the future? Just looking to get your perspective.

What's to understand? I'm just saying what's going to happen after an event like this and yes, what should. But then after the dust settles we still look at the Government to keep us safe and overlook new laws/legislation that restrict our rights even more.

[FlintyV]

which is kind if weird, since the IRA had a lot more bombings and a lot more successful than the extremists today. heck has there even been a successful Muslim extremist terrorist attack on British soil ? which is even weirder since the muslim extremist are willing to sacrifice themselves, the IRA preferred living to bomb another day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

[FloatingFatMan]

which is kind if weird, since the IRA had a lot more bombings and a lot more successful than the extremists today. heck has there even been a successful Muslim extremist terrorist attack on British soil ? which is even weirder since the muslim extremist are willing to sacrifice themselves, the IRA preferred living to bomb another day.

Sure, after 9/11 there was 7/7 London attack in 2005 where several suicide bombers attacked the London Subway and buses. Not as many victims as 9/11, but still a hell of a lot of people died.

[HawkMan]

So that was one attack, vs how many a year from the IRA.

seems terrorist are getting worse and people are getting more scared. granted with attacks such as the Trade center bombings, the stakes for each attack is potentially higher, but these are also very rare attacks that also have a much higher risk of discovery.

[theyarecomingforyou]

^^ Stepped up patrols with guards, bomb sniffing dogs, check points. Major cities and major events rethinking their security, major cities on alert. This is what they want/ed and it's what they got. Now they have us living in fear again. And we we are scared, we look at the Government to help.

Exactly. By having the police out in force in unrelated cities it reinforces the message that the general public is at risk. The UK did a similar thing back in 2003 when Tony Blair ordered the military?including tanks?to guard Heathrow Airport after receiving a terrorist threat, a decision that received widespread criticism. There is no strategic value in deploying tanks to deal with terrorist threats, just as there is no strategic value to lining up police cars in Times Square following a bombing in Boston. The purpose is to show the public that the government and police forces are taking no chances?to serve as positive PR?when the only thing it achieves is scaring the public.

[BajiRav]

Exactly. People were united in solidarity behind the United States after 9/11, yet the response?invading Iraq and Afghanistan; implementing the Patriot Act; illegal detention at Guantanamo Bay; the CIA's use of extraordinary rendition and torture, etc?turned the international community against it. That's why people are observing how the US responds to the Boston Marathon Bombing, both in terms of media coverage and the reaction from politicians and law enforcement.

Already we've seen a lot of misinformation from the media - for instance, it was confirmed by Reuters that "no additional explosive devices have been discovered other than the two that detonated" and that there have only been three confirmed fatalities, not the twelve fatalities reported by the New York Post. And as mentioned earlier, the police will be searching bags and parcels at random - something that seems to contravene civil liberties. The initial indications are not good.

Terrorists succeed when society compromises its values.

I might be wrong but were you not complaining about lax security in first few pages of the thread? If yes, don't you think you are contradicting yourself by worrying about civil liberties now?