"The Tsarnaev brothers had spent most of their lives in the United States, and lived the diversity dream. They seem to have had a droll wit when it comes to symbolism: Last year, the younger brother took his oath of citizenship and became an American on Sept. 11. And, in their final hours of freedom, they added a cruel bit of mockery to their crimes by carjacking a getaway vehicle with a "CO-EXIST" bumper sticker.
I wonder, when the "CO-EXIST" car is returned to its owner, whether he or she will keep the bumper sticker in place. One would not expect him to conclude, as the gays of Amsterdam and the Jews of Toulouse and the Christians of Egypt have bleakly done, that if it weren't for that Islamic crescent you wouldn't need a bumper sticker at all." (Emphasis mine).
As usual, read it all.
He talked about much of this when he filled in for Rush this morning. I missed some of it as I was up all night glued to the tv as events were unfolding. I'm glad to read his whole article, Mark is a National Treasure (not to mention he's dashing, a hunk and has a swoon-incuding accent).
ReplyDeleteThanks, Fay. I'm glad that the 2nd suspect is in custody and that the people of Massachusetts can breathe easier tonight.
Mark Steyn is enough of a British journalist to be able to write effectively, something that continues to elude the hopeless American version, but beyond that I find him frustrating.
DeleteYes, he is good at pointing out the empty-headedness of Leftist causes, and he comes up with good zingers.
But has he *ever* advocated for any solution to the ills that he sets forth?
The fact that he can sit in for Rush is really all the answer one needs there. Like Rush, this is just empty gestures.
I don't think it's Steyn's job (or Rush's either) to propose solutions. They're not politicians, they're commentators. They excel at isolating and presenting the idiotic and the asinine.
DeleteI wonder when the authorities will confiscate Mark Steyn's typewriter. Or find him to be unfit to live in the United States.
ReplyDeletePerhaps since this atrocity happened in one of the liberal bastions of the United States, people will wake up and say, "This isn't working."
I can only hope and pray.
Matt, I am hoping for the exact same thing.
ReplyDeleteBut they won't. It has not been working for a few decades now, and it's made little to no difference. To the left, ideology always trumps intelligence
ReplyDeleteI saw a photograph yesterday of the empty streets of Boston. It was chilling to think of a million unarmed civilians cowering in their homes because one 19 year-old nut was running around with possible explosives.
ReplyDeleteThe citizens of Massachusetts have been rendered helpless and utterly dependent by gun laws and Marxist ideology. The only ones left to protect them are The Government with their big guns, fancy toys and alphabet-soup of inept and tax-sucking agencies.
Dear Leader decrees when it's time for them to come out from under their couches. Welcome to Boston, once the proud cradle of liberty.
lady red, I don't think they were cowering because of one 19 year old.
DeleteI think they were cowering because of the thousands of Interior Ministry troops occupying the city.
I found a live feed on the web and watched them arrest one hapless man who had the misfortune to be out and about in Watertown when this was going on. He was lying facedown on the street for ages with many, many weapons pointed at him. He's lucky he didn't twitch; he's lucky he wasn't deaf or have some mental handicap. He'd have been ventilated where he lay.
Not to say that there isn't another side to this; yeah, having suspects on the loose who were that insanely and demonstratively depraved and aggressive is going to provoke an abundance of muscle on the street.
And in contrast to the recent Dorner case where the criminally slapstick LAPD shot several innocent people with no reasonable resemblance to the suspect, said Interior Ministry troops did manage to deploy their legions without collateral damage. Credit where credit is due.
My liberal friends on the east coast were appalled at the overkill.
Some day I'll be smug and flip with them. But not today, and not tomorrow.
I wasn't talking about the LAPD collateral damage, lewy, I was specifically talking about the difference in the HUGE, unnecessary police presence in Boston.
DeleteYes lewy, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure the over-the-top (and ineffective, as florrie said) show of force scared the dickens out of the population. A well-armed citizenry need not cower in fear from bad guys OR a paramilitary police presence.
DeleteIf the citizens of Boston were armed to the teeth, this entire event may never have happened. But they're not. They've given up the right to defend themselves, their property, their city.
As aridog said, the people of Boston have elected cake-eaters; the result is obvious and sickening.
Excellent point, Lewy, and one with which I whole-heartedly agree. It brings to mind one of the events which had me first questioning my liberal/left beliefs held when I was a young man.
DeleteIn the early morning in Berkeley, a group of black kids was rioting. The Berkeley PD stood in a line perimiter around the riot, but did nothing to stop it. As the mob moved from Tower Records to a local convenience store, the owner, who lived above the store, came outside.
The police quickly moved in and arrested him, then moved back to the perimeter.
You hit the nail exactly on the head, lady red. Exactly. I couldn't believe the overkill for a 19 yr old. WTH??? Then he STILL got away - wounded no less - and managed to evade them for almost 24 hours. Ends up it was a homeowner who clued them in. I'm still incredulous there weren't any collateral civilian causalties. There had to be 4 TIMES the police presence - if not more - than for the Dorner take down.
ReplyDeleteThen naturally, in the aftermath, we are lectured about not "jumping to conclusions" or calling it "jihad".
I'm only going to say something most won't like: I get the impression that most folks on the Internet, including here, have never faced martial law or been part of a man hunt. Never faced soldiers with rifles with fixed bayonets who had a job to do and didn't give a shit if you were displeased. You want law & order, you are fucking well going to get order, if not all the law you'd like. So be it. Denial is not a river in Egypt. So long as this nation votes cake eaters in to office, hard men will have to keep order, harshly.
ReplyDeleteI am referring to needle dick bug fuckers like Christy or Randy Paul as much as any progressive weenies. I want an Allen West with a gun in his hand to blow the ear drums out of the next terrorist shit head. I want the enemy to fear us...and right now they do not. I've seen fear work, it is part and parcel of asymmetrical warfare...and we ARE in a global asymmetrical war.
As far as I am concerned, they did a splendid job in Boston and Watertown. This time. It won't work again, because the perpetrators will know what's coming and flee far away first. The response(s) will have to be heavier, faster, harsher, and more brutal. The next terrorists may be suicidal...it's not a new idea, you know. To get past the homicide bombers you have to find the leadership and kill them....they prefer to just send you fodder for their cause, but you'd better be prepared to find them and kill them, or they'll get you first. Get used to it...we've been babied too long now and we just now notice we have skin in the game? Get used to it...we will require national ID cards and lack of one may get you butt stroked to the ground. AS IT SHOULD.
For a starter: We might be well advised to NOT import students with no visible means of support to attend college here...and when we do they should have to check in with a monitoring officer quarterly at the least...with documentation of every dime they spent, on what and where the dime came from. Follow the money you will find the crime.
Unfair you say? Try walking through the security line for overseas departure at you local airport and have $10.00 more than the allowed $10,000 undeclared on you or in your bags. NO you do NOT get the benefit of doubt due to various currency exchange rates...you will be required to document every dime you earned and spent over the past three years for that $10 oversight. And that's just for the citizens...it's worse for non-residents.
Our general entitlement mentality has caught up with us. We appear soft to our enemies because we are soft in too many places. You must know we're fucked when we have to argue with Afghanistan over anything? Right? Oh, wait...
In the student category, for an example of near perfect infiltration look no further than Huma Abdine....a Saudi Sunni Wahhabist, born here but gone at 2 years of age to KSA, who was personal assistant to a Secretary of State...and has never once earned a salary that comports with her life style while here from age 19 onwards.
DeleteAs far as I know, they didn't declare martial law. I still think it was overkill; that's just my internet keyboard warrior opinion, I haven't been in a war zone. I don't think they did a splendid job.
DeleteJust a different outlook.
Correct...martial law was NOT implemented. It was voluntary compliance...but so are income taxes. Non-compliance can have consequences. Next time, if real martial law, compliance will be required or you will be imprisoned without bail or hearing. But it will be, if necessary, once again, as it has been, right here in river city, in the past. That is my point...and yes, you have lived long enough to have lived in the United States when martial law was declared in certain municipalities...in 1967 & 1968 for example.
DeleteThe problem with the liberal drift of governance is that it enables terrorists, for better or worse. We only think it frees us. We've drifted well to the left over the past 50 years, and we are now seen as vulnerable. The expectations of liberals and progressives is that they hold the moral high ground...however, when challenged they will react as fascists with heavy boots on everyone's neck.
Any doubt about this, refer to Muqtada Al Sadr in Iraq...ever here of him before Saddam's fall? No, you did not. He is now "free" to disrupt and may topple the government there sooner than later. He didn't dare to rise up until we liberalized the country. Unintended consequences, but consequences non-the-less.
I've read all the arguments about how the perimeter "missed" #2, etc...bullshit. The voluntary shut down made him a target...e.g., no where to run and be seen. IT WORKED. We don't know how many lives were saved, therefore...that is speculation, BUT WE DO KNOW how many innocent lives were NOT taken after dawn 20 April...that'd be ZERO. It held him long enough to put a bullet hole in him and deny him a car...thus he scrambled barely a block or two to hide in a boat.
Lunatics loose in a relatively confined area with more bombs called for drastic measures...and I congratulate the citizens of Boston and Watertown for their patience and good sense. This idea that, oh my, our rights are violated by "one guy", how unfair, blah blah...is naive in the extreme.
Part of what has gone wrong with our Republic and the rule of law is that way too many of us think laws don't apply to us. I doubt anyone here voted to the most recent weak kneed leaders, but some of us, including me, voted to previous ones. We are reaping what we've sown. Denial won't help. the old rules of the street will again apply....there is a difference between "stand up" and "shut up" and the laws that say so apply to all of us.
They did a good job in Boston because it could have been worse, but wasn't. And it is NOT about "war zones"....unless we continue to let our leaders make our homes war zones by not enforcing the ;laws we have...we do have a choice.
Florie and others....when I referred to soldiers with rifles loaded and bayonets fixed I was NOT referring to a war zone....I was referring to Detroit 1967 and the 82nd Airborne sent in to help quell the insurrection.
DeleteThis is NOT about being a veteran. It is only coincidental that I saw and participated in martial law activities subsequent to my enlistment in 1968...by that time I'd already seen martial law up close and personal....right here in my home.
What I saw on TV news in Boston was the opposite of all that. This time.
Your observations are well considered as always Ari but there are two of my own that I'll add:
Delete- the country where you get stuck to the ground for not having an ID card is not the country I want to live in. Yes, that means it will be less "secure" in some sense. I don't think I'm in the minority in this country with that opinion. And without strong popular support, those kinds of controls don't enjoy any political legitimacy.
- people don't think the law applies to them because we're all criminals now. Conservatives and liberals seemed to have a deal going the last twenty years where "you support my bullshit statutes and I'll support yours (or at least not get in the way)". So we have war on /terror/drugs/sexism/racism/pollution/ etc... and then said laws are pretty randomly enforced.
You are correct, what happened in Boston was not martial law. What unfolded Thursday night into Friday morning was not actually that massive in terms of police presence - when #1 was killed and #2 injured there were not that many cops on the street.
The Interior Ministry actions came Friday. And yes, actually, they failed. They came up empty and they were called off. It was when ordinary people came out of their house that the bloody boat tarp was discovered by the boat owner.
Arguably if the giant "shelter in place" dragnet hadn't happened, the #2 punk would have been discovered sooner.
Yeah I know reasoning from one incident is bad but in general the tendency for the authorities to push everyone out of the way and "handle it" over-estimates the competence of said authorities.
Hmmm... I should clarify what I mean by "not that many cops on the street" above.
DeleteThe shootout where #1 was killed and #2 injured happened with about 5 cruisers. One cop was almost killed when he came upon them alone in his cruiser. They had #1 in handcuffs and #2 jumped in his SUV and charged the cops. Ended up running over his brother.
There were "a lot of cops" to be sure... most I've ever counted out my own window in downtown portland was 20+ in a pretty much unbroken caravan... I'd call that "normally a lot"... But the whole armored vehicle thing? The nobody come out thing? That I've never seen.
So yeah "a lot of cops" were involved in the shootout, but "a lot" in the ordinary sense.
Lewy said ...
DeleteThe Interior Ministry actions came Friday. And yes, actually, they failed. They came up empty and they were called off. It was when ordinary people came out of their house that the bloody boat tarp was discovered by the boat owner.
Arguably if the giant "shelter in place" dragnet hadn't happened, the #2 punk would have been discovered sooner.
I will respond at length later, gotta fun to the Doctor's office now. However, your statements above are non-sense and illogical...which surprise me coming from you.
Let's just go with what we know happened. #2 was wounded and deprived of a vehicle to flee in during the shoot out....he was on foot and wounded. How far could he flee? Where could he go since he was deprived of the *sea of people* ti *swim* within? He found a boat. Boat owner, who had abided the shut down, went out back for a smoke upon the lifting and saw blood, etc...notified police who immediately verified the presence of #2 with FLIR.
Quote simply, the shut down limited the #2's options to what he found...the boat. THAT was the plan....the boat a block outside the official perimeter fulfilled it.
Now you tell me how if the shelter in place operation hadn't been implemented how you think the #2 would have been found and captured sooner? Would the boat owner have checked his boat? Or would he have been at work or otherwise elsewhere? Would #2 perhaps have injured or killed more innocent people? We don't know...what we do know is that he didn't because of the environment created for him...few or no targets. Yea-buts are not plans, and plans have to be flexible. This plan worked....period.
- the country where you get stuck to the ground for not having an ID card is not the country I want to live in.
DeletePlease name one place where it's different once martial law is declared?
It is very nice to have law and order...however, you will have *order* with or without laws of a republic...the political class WILL see to it. Pollyanna is who they'd hang first.
- people don't think the law applies to them because we're all criminals now. Conservatives and liberals seemed to have a deal going the last twenty years where "you support my bullshit statutes and I'll support yours (or at least not get in the way)". So we have war on /terror/drugs/sexism/racism/pollution/ etc... and then said laws are pretty randomly enforced.
DeleteCorrect. However, the government will see to its own best interests now, with a bludgeon if necessary. We gave them permission...as your statement here clearly indicates.
Hmm... WSJ comes out in favor of treating the bomber as anenemy combatant.
ReplyDeleteI get this. I've made similar arguments myself for years. Not sure it's warranted in this case. Kinda moot, anyway; this administration won't do anything of the kind.
If our military courts could be restored to some fashion of military order, then tribunals would work. But military justice is a joke now and tribunals are likewise. How's that Bradley Manning trial going these days? Can anyone of us list the convictions in the past decade by tribunal? Anyone know who, if anyone, enabled Major Hasan to be promoted and transferred when he had no record to warrant either action? Even an Article 15, non-judicial sanction would be something... but we got nothing.
DeleteArguably under civil and military law both Manning and Hasan are also guilty of treason, but their own admissions or expressions.
I subscribe to the WSJ...but it is the very last place I'd look for guidance on military law, let alone civilian law....hell, they seem to have no issues with Corzine going scott free without so much as a serious hearing.
Summary: as I've expressed earlier here, we have pussified our nation to the point where there are only two options...lose to our enemies bit by bit while declaring they are not our enemies, whimper sniffle, whine...or become harshly fascistic and crush all opposition.
The latter is what we will get...and we damn near begged for it by throwing away our morality and making the issue between right and wrong too complex. We've played semantic games with our words until our words have no meaning...except what government bureaucrats say they mean.
You do know that in ice hockey malpractice on the ice is no longer penalized, it is taxed. Right? Whot? Thanks to SCOTUS and fick licker Roberts the sanction for non-performance or performance against the rules is now called a tax...which means you get some money back if you perform properly...and ask for the money, which was your originally.
In becoming this kinder gentler country we've sacrificed our liberty because everyone is now a victim and due reparations...enjoy it, we asked for it.
The only way the President could rationally claim lone actor jihadists are EBs would be if we were at war with Islam, or Radical Islam. Since we are not, and instead are at war with those individuals and organizations who aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks, I don't see how the President could find the two to be EBs.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, there is a connection we are not yet aware of.
Holy shit...really? You define "being at war" in feudal terms in the 21st century? What was that John Brennan, deja-vu clone of Robert Komer & CORDS, running out of the White House again? Internet chess? What difference does it make? There's our answer...no difference.
DeleteWe damn sure ARE at war with radical Islam and the majority of Muslims who live here in the USA wonder why we seem not to get it? We were their last refuge, and as the next door woman in tears, tugging at my arms, said to me on 11 Sep 2001..."we are so sorry what we fled has followed us here."
By now they are well aware we are not going to do jack shit about it ... and Boston 15 April 2013 just drove another wedge of terror in to their hearts. 20 April 2013 at least gave them a moment of hope that we still had some balls.
And now they listen to us yap on about "over-kill" in our response ... which would be hilarious if not so damn sad.
Kevin, maybe the connection (between the Tsarnaev's and Al Qaida) is described here. The Caucasus Emirate is a group I've heard of before, obsessive neo-con that I am!
DeleteBack when I was blogging for Winds of Change I recall doing a piece on Beslan - heh, it seems to have survived the WoC database corruptions; you can read it here. (From back in the day when I tried to write stuff that sounded like an Economist leader... omg pompous, much?)
The upshot is that Dan Darling had documented the links between the Chechens and AQ, and the Examiner piece I just linked states that "Emir" Doku Umarov essentially declared war on the US, UK and Israel in 2007 (in the fashion of Bin Laden's declaration in 1998 IIRC), and in turn the US declared war on his organization in 2011 by signing an agreement with Russia and designating his group as a terrorist organization.
So if - and only if - these connections pan out with respect to the brothers Tsarnaev, a good lawyer might (might) be able find surviving brother an enemy combatant.
Still don't think it's a good idea. Reading over at PJ Media, it seems the even the remnant neo-cons seem to be in rough consensus that criminal prosecution is the way to go here.
oh, and by "declaration of war" in my comment above, I don't mean any declaration by Congress as specified in the Constitution, only the ritual exchange of fuuuuuuk yoooooo!s typical of the modern diplomatic system of establishing a state of "bellum". You know. "Best practices" and whatnot.
Deletetest
DeleteFuck it...blogger gone tilt again.
DeleteNow that there's not breaking news every 30 minutes, I've reread your April 21 posts @ 12:47 and 6:43, thought about what you are saying, Aridog. I see what you mean and I think you are right, at least - that's how I feel about the direction our govt. has slowly drifted since the late 50s. It's insidious. But I understand, yes, the Watertown operation was successful, no collateral damage, all good things. I also agree that next time the perps probably won't hang around for that type of response and that means we need to take out the top level.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't want to know what was in that deleted comment ;-)
I don't like paramilitary shows of force in American streets, but the good little sheeple were left with no choice, were they?
ReplyDeleteBostonians have allowed themselves to be defanged and rendered helpless by the trampling of the second amendment. This is the price they pay. They stood in the streets and cheered the armed-to-the-teeth gov't that saved them...it put chills of dread down my spine.
And now the "progressive" droolers are brandishing their little sticks and poking the death penalty back to life...because violence has happened to them, in their streets, in their town...not to a nameless bunch of hayseeds and federal clock-punchers in Oklahoma. I despise them.
Thanks to everyone for leaping into this conversation. All your points are well-taken. We each approach things from our own experiences and viewpoints, and I respect the insight/perspective voiced here.
Spot on, Lady Red.
ReplyDeleteESPECIALLY about our beloved New English comrades.
To hell with them. We really should cut them loose and let them live in their progressive paradise, that, oh by the way, is STILL over 90% European-American, while they push a settlement wave from Latin America, the Muslim world and Africa down our throats.
Acelastan.
DeleteBonus points for reminding progressive atheist types that their atheist "thought leaders" are actually horrible racist Islamaphobes. Because Glenn Greenwald says so. And Noam Chomsky. And because shut up.
DeleteIn other news, what happens in Azatlan stays in Azatlan.
DeleteHave we devolved so far that paramilitary shows of force when we are attacked bother us? What is preferable? There was a time in my lifetime when we were glad to see uniformed police officers walking beats, on almost every corner, and did not fear them because we were doing nothing wrong...only those who were had reason to fear. Now it is upsetting? Why?
ReplyDeleteI understand the sentiment, but that is just what it is...sentiment. It is not defense. We got lucky...as we are now learning, FBI and DHS barely managed to coordinate anything. The Russians knew we had a problem while we didn't....they said so, and between DHS and FBI and CIA we dropped that ball.
I can't help but feel that since 2008 the whole concept of DHS has been made a joke...and I wasn't ever very fond of it, because I believe agencies can take orders to cooperate without creating another agency to oversee it all...and then not cooperate either.
It is quite revealing that in the same day the FBI says it was not made aware that #1 had visited Russia for 6+ months in Dagestan, a hotbed of Islamic Terrorism, while almost at the same time the Secretary of DHS says, yes we knew he left the country. On a forged Russian passport, no less....fucking-A, why was he not kept track of, let alone why was he let back in to the country on bullshit papers and a green card.
This is the bed we've made, now we get to lie in it.
It occurs to me that by growing up during WWII and the Korean War that I grew up used to military and paramilitary shows of force. We kids loved it, and it made us feel safe. I recall General Douglas MacArthur's visit to Detroit in a parade as a high point of my youthful life. Why has this changed?
ReplyDeleteHave we become so enamored of hippie "democracy" that we disconnect from the virtue of a Republic, that of "law and order?" Have we so denigrated our military now that we no longer respect the only force in the world where a private can rise to command a brigade, in combat, or higher in a career, like LTG Chesty Puller USMC.
Does anyone get it that this apparent antipathy toward anything military makes many of us wonder why we ever enlisted?
I don't think anyone here is denigrating the military. I personally do not consider our military forces and police forces as the same thing. I do have some mistrust of the police. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to them, I've taken doughnuts to our local police in gratitude. But I see some of the corruption and misuse of their power and am wary.
ReplyDeleteNot so with the military. It's a cliche but I love our military. I was born on Ft. Sill; my mom kept things together there as my dad was in Korea. I lived on military posts until my senior year of high school. My dad's last assignment was Ft. Lewis, we lived right next to the parade field and we all loved seeing the various events there. It was thrilling and inspiring and still is. Tom & I there last 4th of July and it brought a lump to my throat seeing the parade field again and our quarters, first time I had been there in 40 years.
We live about 20 minutes from Ft. Lewis/McChord and I see many military personnel when I shop and I always feel more secure and grateful when I see someone in uniform. Our community has many military families living here.
There is a generational difference in a way, though, in certain "shows of force". I remember going to Poulsbo with my mom and we would have to cross the Hood Canal floating bridge to get there. It occasionally was open to let ships through and we'd have to wait - several times it was for the nuclear subs going back to base in Bremerton. Anyway, that's the only time I ever got a real glimpse of them as they silently went through the sound. If you've never seen them, they are gigantic, black subs. I recall telling my mom as we watched them go through "...they kind of scare me" and my mom replied "They do? They make me feel safe."
My problem with the Watertown response was that apparently every police force in a 100 mile radius was there. Maybe it was necessary, I'm still thinking about the whole thing.
Aridog, I think florrie does a wonderful job explaining what we're talking about.
ReplyDeleteThere is a HUGE difference between the military and the police. HUGE.
I do not like local police playing soldier. I do not like local police being a sole means of defense against domestic bad guys. I do not like local (or even some federal) agencies stockpiling ammunition while the store shelves are empty for the rest of us. I do not like gun control laws. I believe citizens should have the means and opportunity to defend themselves and their communities.
When I was a kid, we were taught to run to a policeman if we were in trouble. Times have changed. The police are doodied-up with military gear and tons of nifty equipment paid for by Homeland Security, even in my remote neck of the woods. The police have become arrogant, and in many cases have forgotten that their mission is to protect and serve, not lord over the citizenry.
My distrust runs deep enough that I don't teach my granddaughter to run to the nearest policeman. I teach her to scream her head off, bite/kick/scratch/gouge, and run to the nearest woman.
Is it truly just sentiment that's at work here? Or is it a realization that if we don't stand up for ourselves, and protect ourselves, we are doomed? Relying on an inept, bloated government/police response in times of trouble is a recipe for disaster, IMHO.
(As a side note, anytime my granddaughter and I are out and about, when we see a soldier/marine in uniform we approach them, shake their hand, and thank them for their service. Our military/vets are held in the highest esteem by my family, my neighbors, my community, and my state.)
I'm running late this morning, and will say more later...however, here is a link to the devastation in Boston. You tell me if that is not a war zone. Tell me the police don't need to be nearly paramilitary?
ReplyDeleteDON'T OPEN THE LINK IF YOU ARE SQUEMISH...however, if you don't open it you will never understand the level of anger I feel. I have seen such carnage before. Cops equipped and trained like the 1950's can't handle it.
Our leadership is preparing to decrease the number of US Army soldiers by 100,000 [potenially 8 or so Divisions] ...once done, a Brigade of terrorist shit heads could do an landing in Boston and we'd be unable to dislodge them.
I don't think anyone HERE has intentionally denigrated soldiers, but I am not convinced we appreciate what we are really facing. See the link...it is NOT mere criminal activity. A majority of voters in this country elected a man twice who disdains the military except where it can serve him personally.
By the way, the link cited was provided to me by a close friend who is a US Marice Corps veteran and former Deputy Police Chief in Detroit. Nothing about him resembles the aloof and arrogant police I'm seeing described here...just possibly the best cop of the many I know or have known. My question must be...what do we think made the arrogant that way?
DeleteYou cite DHS influence. Well, well...where does THAT come from? That's the DHS that can't manage the time of day in coordination with other security agencies? That can't perform its original primary mission of coordination... starting with databases? You gotta know what I think about that.
God in heaven. Aridog is right; if you're squeamish, don't click the link. I've seen similar trauma victims in bad car wrecks when I was a young EMT. Even so, it still makes the tummy roll.
DeleteThe first thing that struck me about these photos are the number of ordinary people responding to help the wounded. It seems like Americans instinctively run towards a crisis; it's who we are, and engrained in our national spirit. Even with all the gore, runners and bystanders were doing everything they could to help.
I've been busy myself and can only respond briefly - Ari's points deserve further comment but I can only observe that the paramilitary response "couldn't handle it either"... while the suspect _was_ captured, there were substantial errors.
DeleteI read (NYT, dead tree edition of a day ago or so) that a review of the operation revealed two things that ran counter to initial reports:
- the boat was within the perimeter and should have been searched. They flat out missed him. So much for the carefully executed plan. Tons of citizens were tossed out of their homes at gunpoint; the suspect, not so much.
- the suspect was _not_ armed. There was no "exchange of fire". The cops put dozens of rounds into the boat and damn near killed the suspect because... they're not saying. Dumb luck / bad shooting is the only thing that kept the kid alive - which is useful. If they'd shot him 15 times and he turned out to be unarmed, wow, that would have gone over well, eh? He'll get put down eventually but we do need some data here...
The paramilitary response wasn't to protect us, it was to protect themselves. It wasn't the gore of the Marathon attack that brought out the tanks, IMO it was the cold blooded murder of the cop. Which was horrible, and deserving of rough justice in its own right... but I'm under no illusions that a civilian's murder would have elicited the same response.
See again, e.g., the response to the Dorner situation.
No. I don't trust them. You know if they'd put the actual Army to work - trained in the ROE in Afghanistan - I'd have felt safer. Quite aside from the whole "militarized response or not" debate is the whole "don't militarize if you suck at it" imperative...
I read (NYT, dead tree edition of a day ago or so) that a review of the operation revealed two things that ran counter to initial reports ...
DeleteSorry, I almost have to stop reading at that point...NYT? Please. Did they cite a name or two of just who is making this analysis and what their evidence is? Just like Benghazi, which was a spontaneous protest you know. No really.
- the boat was within the perimeter and should have been searched.
Official map of perimeter please...with provenance.
- the suspect was _not_ armed.
Copy of initial detention report would be nice, but otherwise, so fucking what? He WAS armed with his brother earlier both with firearms and bombs in Watertown. Do you really think the cops are supposed to just go up to the boat, crawl inside with the guy, and drag him out? No potential bombs or guns there...you're v-e-r-y sure of that? One thing you got right...it does remind me of the current Afghan ROE's which stipulate ISAF soldiers are to be certain targets before they can react. You know, take one for the folks then fight back.
Dumb luck / bad shooting is the only thing that kept the kid alive
No, the kid was lying beside the engine of the boat and it protected him...they should have used .50 caliber BMG AP rounds. Other wise the little fucker was ordered to get out of the boat on his own, which he was capable of doing as proven by photos of his eventual surrender.
The paramilitary response wasn't to protect us, it was to protect themselves.
No shit? Really? I'll be damned...how cowardly of them to not elect to join Sean Collier shot dead sitting in his car attacking no one? Of course, we expect police and soldiers to "protect us" by sacrificing themselves....but I can't recall that in the oath I took as a soldier in 1968 ...must be Alzheimer catching up with me.
No. I don't trust them.
I assure you cops know that....think about it and how that might just make them arrogant. To many of us don't trust anyone who impedes our pursuit of happiness, even if it is at the expense of others.
You know if they'd put the actual Army to work - trained in the ROE in Afghanistan - I'd have felt safer.
I seriously suggest you talk to a couple dozen combat veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq before you come to that conclusion. The ROE is simple...no shooting at enemy combatants, in plain view and arm with military weapons, if they do not first aim at you. In other words, you depend upon the enemy missing you on the first shot. For a real life experience, try that with a buddy...have him aim a rifle at you, then you try to get your rifle up from port arms to ready arms and fire before he does. Americans have watched way too many Hollywood horse-shit movies.
continued...
DeleteROE's like those in place now are what make atrocity more likely, not less....e.g., you must kill all witnesses. Oh, wait...that's not the intended consequence?
With all the crap flying abou tnow, refine it down the siomple terms...the cover in place edict wasn't implemented until Friday morning...it DID eliminate the sea of people for the terrorist fish to swim in ... and the guy was captured, not killed.
If up to me, at the next marathon I'd post a big sign saying no back packs, no brief cases, no baggage of any kind allowed among spectators. No check in gate, just roving cops with truncheons to skull crack anyone caught with such baggage. That'd be a first step in putting "order" back in to "law."
We are at a point where we don't get it...we either enforce order amongst ourselves or it WILL be imposed. Law & Order is not an inalienable right, it is a personal responsibility. We see it in the commendable response of citizens running toward danger to help ... it would be even better if they took steps to reduce the dangers themselves instead of waiting in a cloud of false security. Police are not pest exterminators, and shouldn't be, they are gate keepers.
Look to our government for fixes, even if it is nearly impossible now...DHS is a clown show...why is it still there? It does not do ONE THING originally intended...and Boston/Watertown is proof. How do these fucking tartar half breed grifters get political asylum here while still happily popping back and forth to the old homeland they fled? And how do they do this with basically no visible means of support beyond welfare and piece work like "facials" [aka blow jobs, etc.] in the ole section 8 apartment? Price a Round Trip ticket to Moscow from Boston....do food stamps cover that?
No folkls...in our quest for peace and happines we have invited violence and asymmetrical war. Get used to it.
Ari - a response to a few of your points -
Delete- on the fact that Dhzokhar was inside the perimeter - here is the NYT article. And here is a nice summary of the points from a Boston site.
Police officials initially said the boat was in the backyard of a house just outside the perimeter of the area where investigators had conducted door-to-door searches all day. But Commissioner Davis, of the Boston police, said this week that the boat had been inside the perimeter.
“It was an area that should have been checked,” he said. “We are not sure how long he was in the boat. There was a pool of blood near where the car was dumped about four or five blocks away from the boat.” [Emphasis mine]
I'm taking a direct, on the record quote from a Boston police commissioner as being pretty dispositive, even from the NYT. As much as I'd like to steer clear of that rag, I find it still helps to read now and then.
- on the issue of the suspect being armed - no, obviously caution was warranted; what isn't clear is why the police fired. That this isn't clear is attested to by the same source:
It is still not clear what prompted officers to fire into the boat. “Shots fired, multiple shots!” someone was heard saying on the radio, before another call went out: “All units hold your fire! Hold your fire.”
Commissioner Davis said that “we will have to see what prompted the volley of shots before the cease-fire was ordered by a superintendent of the Boston police.”
- If the reason the Dizzy T (I have to find some handle for Dhzokhar Tsarnaev, damned if I'm going to look that shit up every time) survived the volley from the police was due to the fact he was lying near the engine, then I'd call that "luck", actually.
As to the other points - look, if the police demonstrate indifference to the safety and rights of the average person, the average person isn't going to trust them. Further beatings are not going to improve the morale.
My comment with respect to Afghanistan and the ROE was made simply to observe that the US Army in Afghanistan seemingly takes more care with civilians than our fabulous Interior Ministry does. Obviously a lot wrong with that. Which way the needles should move is a matter of debate but surely that gap should close.
Let me paraphrase a bit on what is *dispositive* ...
Delete**I'm taking a direct, on the record quote from a U.S Secretary of State, as well as the US UN Ambassador, as well as the chairman Joints chiefs of Staff, as being pretty dispositive, concerning the Benghazi.**
How's that?
Doesn't matter where published, the senior executives will fill in blanks, lie, and pump out excuses. What is more important, what the commissioner now says the perimeter was or what the on the street facing the issue police officers thought it was?
What counts more...non-fatal errors by police officers on the scene or the capture of a live suspect? What was the final reality?
What do you think the Interior Ministry aka the police are on duty to protect you or me or anyone from crime? That is bullshit. They are there to arrest, and sometimes punish, criminals post facto, thus acting as a deterrent. NO way in hell is their job to make you happy or protect you from everything adverse. Where police malfeasance today has increased it is primarily because of the expansion of what we expect from police out of the *serve & protect* meme. Just try to show respect and you might find street cops are less indifferent. You know, act a bit like you actually care for their safety as well as your own. Executive cops, when arrogant, are political bureaucrats and they are in office because you/we elected so asshole who appointed them. Chicken or the egg issue, really...blame the source...us.
As far as Afghan ROE's...you really don't get it do you? That *care* for civilian welfare is part and parcel of almost every soldier's mentality, and training, and puts them at risk at times because they trust. When senior officers who will never face the gunfire again themselves [NcChrystal and Petraeus, et al] make the rules rigid and capital crimes when violated, the effect is suicidal for the line troops and the normal tendency to care vanishes...kill everything, no witnesses,....see under the *Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act* [fucking Republican sponsorship)makes it a lifetime threat...no statute of limitations if homicide can be alleged, even by mere hearsay.
In short, military and police political card-punching dick licking big wigs try to take credit for mandating behaviors that are otherwise normal compassionate responses of line officers and men ... and that eliminates the compassion. Stupidest idea ever conceived.
I think I have discovered where and how Lewy and I disagree now and then. I absolutely do NOT trust senior leadership for morals or ethics, but favor the guys on the line...wherever a line might be, including building cars. I think Lewy tends to favor authoritative levels of management, those who give us the real dope post facto...who have perspective, and so forth. This leads one to say something didn't work because authoritative figures say so...even when the results say it did work. In Watertown, #1 was killed and #2 was captured, alive.
ReplyDeleteThe fuss to place blame and take credit is astounding. It is quite possible some people in Times Square, NYC, are not looking for blown off limbs as a result of the success in Watertown. I gotta go with results at hand.
I favor no-one, Ari. I am a full spectrum cynic.
DeleteIn this instance the police corrected a lot of the mis-information which was put out in the immediate aftermath.
Luck plays a part in many things. Post hoc assessment of what is due to chance and what worked according to plan is a good habit to have IMO.
That said: I had a conversation with an associate in Boston who was one of the few people at work that Friday when the Boston was shut down... he was in a part of Boston (downtown - financial district) which wasn't officially shut down; it was voluntary - which it was, apparently, except within the search perimeter. Yet very many people stayed inside.
My associate said at the time that he thought it was silly, and he had work to do... but today he said that the sentiment is that nobody wanted to second guess the police; they didn't really know what they were dealing with.
Which, I have to say, sounds fair.
But it's chilling that so few people were like my associate and went to work anyway, and that Boston was basically a ghost town.
Yes, there might be evil doers who were dissuaded by the show of force.
And there may be others who have learned just exactly what level of provocation will result in the closure of a major city, and are eagerly preparing to effect that level of response as an end in itself.
We don't know what we're dealing with, either.
Lewy we've belabored this too long I think....few people will really grasp my viewpoint. That is not their fault, but mine, for being less than clear I suspect. What rankles me is that I come off [usually elsewhere] as the RINO or the Fascist or both.
DeleteYour points are presented and argued in good faith, as usual, but our backgrounds separate us somewhat. I was ticked to see your tongue in cheek apology for Green Peace [et al] participation. You might be surprise that until fairly recently past 3 or so years] I was an active advocate and paying member for several national/global wildlife and environmental groups, as well as veterans aide groups. They managed to drive me away by their overt political advocacy for candidates who actually came to take actions opposite the interests of the environment and wildlife, or veteran, they allege to protect.
I didn't lose interest, but one by one they drove me away with their overt political advocacy, almost 100% favoring the current administration, and supporting its campaigns with voice and money. All of that only to pivot 180 degrees in term and beg for more money and political action to defeat the very administration, and plans thereof, they helped put in office...that they were actively assisting again in 2012, simultaneously. I was born at night, but not last night.
Next, due to my time as a "Fed" I do NOT trust senior spokespersons and executives in government. For every one time they are telling truth, in my experience, there are likely two times they are outright lying out of self interest. Anything government tells the NYT is prepared pap to serve a propaganda point and nothing more....they have whole office staffs nation wide to do precisely that. It is sad, but institutionalized behavior.
As for my straw-man paraphrasing of your comment about authoritative disposition, vis a vis Benghazi, I note you didn't comment. Highly placed liars gave the WAPO and NYT all the news they needed....and then lied again to Congress...just like many Mafiosi during Congressional inquiries. I'd agree that post hoc assessment is good to have, but only if done by those who were actively in the plan, not those who merely might have read it. Why? Because no plan ever goes according to plan. The only guys/gals who know what really transpired were in the actions and experienced the differences....and that includes some managerial ranks, but seldom political ranks.
Ari, I don't mind the back and forth at all - and I don't mean to be trying to get the last word - but I do have a couple more comments...
Delete- I totally understand the mistrust of official spokesmen. I don't trust them either when what they're telling me is self-serving. The thing about the quotes I highlighted were that they were admissions against interest. They weren't self serving (at least I haven't figured out how they were self serving). They didn't make the police look competent; they were admissions of mistakes.
Am I supposed to suspect that Dizzy T was really outside the zone after all? That he had a gun they're not telling us about? Why? The reason the police commish probably came out and admitted the mistakes was that the truth would have come out eventually at trial and the longer they sat on it the worse they would look. As for the people "in the thick of it", well, self serving lies are a tactic employed by everybody, including them. Like I said, "full spectrum" cynic.
Now, that said, if you can come up with a reason that these quotes are actually self serving lies, I'm all ears - seriously - I'm cynical enough to think omg I believe the official word... what am I missing?. Bengazi? Yeah, complete bullshit. Everyone knows it. But sometimes officials are forced to tell the truth... this may be one of those times.
- I left Greenpeace with a very bad taste in my mouth for just about exactly the reasons you describe - they too drove me away.
I haven't figured out how they were self serving
DeleteStatements against interest blaming subordinates are ALWAYS self serving to the senior leaders making them.
That he had a gun they're not telling us about?
Did anyone tell you he didn't have a gun before he was captured? Did the presence of guns and bombs, both used, prior to capture imply to a reasonable officer on the scene facing the danger that #2 was likely unarmed?
As for the people "in the thick of it", well, self serving lies are a tactic employed by everybody, including them
Really. Yep, and which are you going to believe. The direct witnesses or the executive experts from their office towers? I haven't read it but I may have missed it...did anyone from "the thick of it" say definitely #2 had a gun...or did they say they believed he did?
In my first hand personal experience if you get a summary of a fire fight from a pair of Sergeants on the spot and then another from a Colonel and/or General, believe the Sergeants. The fog of war is never more dense than that impeding after action reports an echelon or two removed.
Watertown was no different, in fact it was exactly the same.
I've been reading the discussion here with great interest, and in the final analysis I am with Aridog.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand you all correctly, you were upset that the police closed down Boston while they were hunting the terrorist at large. I really don't understand why that upset you. It surely was the only sensible thing to do. It's lucky you didn't live in Israel during the last intifada. Closing down cities was a regular occurrence. True, it didn't usually last long, and like in Boston compliance was voluntary. But if you valued your life you listened to what the police said.
How many times did we hear announcements on the radio "please stay indoors, there's a hunt on for terrorists in the [whichever] region". And we did because we were scared, and we trusted the police and the IDF to find the terrorists. Which they did, most of the time. Of course there were the hundreds of times where intelligence did not reach the authorities in time, and we saw the results of that. Boston multiplied hundreds of times over.
How many times did we encounter road blocks and road closures? I've lost count. We still get these today, it's just that you don't hear about it on the news any more because it's so commonplace.
On the day of our daughter's wedding nearly 11 years ago, an announcement went out that a trio of terrorists were on the loose in the greater Tel Aviv area, and all the roads in the area were shut. Completely. Including the road right outside the wedding hall. We made it to the hall in time, before the closure, and so did our son in law and his parents. But not half the band, not some of our son-in-law's brothers, not my cousin who was stuck near Herzliya for 3 hours, and many other friends and relatives.
Yes, it was a bit upsetting. But we had a great wedding. The band players eventually turned up, one by one, and they gave us extra time at the end to compensate even though they were not at fault for being late. The rest of our guests also made it in during the evening.
It was just another typical day in Israel. We got used to such inconveniences and we never criticised the police for overkill.
It's no use saying that you don't want to turn into Israel or the Middle East. It's too late. You already have to a certain degree, as has every Western country that has experienced terrorism.
For us Israelis watching the events in Boston from afar, the police did an excellent job. They kept the public safe and got their man. What else should they have done?
annie, thank you for commenting - I was hoping we'd hear your opinion.
DeleteDespite the discussion with Ari over whether the cops made mistakes I have to agree with you that in the end they got their man... very sadly, the only person to lose their life after the perps pictures were released was himself a police officer, more or less executed in cold blood. The paramedics who tried to save his life actually knew the guy. Horribly sad story.
I think the very large presence on the Friday after the cop was shot can be understood in terms of force protection - they didn't know exactly how many people may be involved and didn't want to be caught out in an ambush. Not unreasonable, as far as that goes...
The problem we're having is that the whole "DHS" apparatus with a show of force on the streets is disconcerting to us at best at a time when "Islamist threat" is being written out of the FBI manuals, "Extreme right wing threats" is highlighted by the DHS and the media, and "extreme right wing" includes virtually all the Americans on this blog, and oh by the way the Republican party is totally on board calling us "extreme right wing" because we're not OK with opening our borders and registering our guns, and we liked the old Constitution we had before we had the Imperial President and his Standing Committee of the Politburo (the so called "Gang of EIght") in place of a real legislature.
So yeah, a little creepy from our perspective.
9/11 shut down the skies; I remember that pretty well. I don't recall a city being closed down. I'm very much afraid that what we've taught future terrorists with this experience is that they can shut down a city - and so they'll do it. If most of Boston had gone to work (like my associate did) and kept calm and carried on, no such lesson would have been on offer. Risky? Yes, in the moment, but this is a "repeated game" in the Nash Equilibrium sense...
Lewy .... do NOT for even a moment think I approve of DHS at all. The DHS entities were not the police forces in action in Watertown. Had DHS done its job much earlier, months earlier, Watertown and Boston might never have happened. DHS did not run or coordinate anything in Watertown.
DeleteI have personal friends who are officers under DHS in a particular agency...and they think less of DHS than I do. DHS did squat...hell, DHS couldn't even get fresh water to storm victims in NY and NJ until a week after the storm hit...no chance they could run a manhunt.
DHS was the worst thing created under Bush 43, and augmented more under Obama 44, bar none.
Here's a summary of DHS agencies & departments:
DeleteUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Transportation Security Administration
United States Coast Guard
National Protection and Programs Directorate
United States Secret Service
Note, FBI is not part of it, nor is any control of National Guard troops, which fall under the state governor except when superseded by the POTUS...usually when a state of insurrection is determined or a crisis crosses state lines. DHS never has control of the active US military forces of DoD.
This is a great discussion, and I truly appreciate everyone's viewpoint.
DeleteAnnie, I think part of the reason many of us are bristling at the police tactics in Boston is simply that we no longer trust the police, or, more succinctly, the powers controlling the civilian police forces.
Our police were once a local entity, serving individual communities. Now they seem to be puppets of Washington bureaucrats who crap money and fancy toys into their departments. They no longer "protect and serve" the citizens who once-upon-a-time wrote their paychecks. Americans are historically distrustful of concentrated federal power; many of us don't want our neighborhood cops to be militarized, courtesy of the reigning regime in DC.
In Israel, do you and your neighbors trust the police? I'm thinking you probably do, but please correct me if I'm veering down the wrong road in attempting to explain my gut-reaction to the Boston response.
The whole "Boston-strong" media-blitz really irks me. There is nothing "strong" about relinquishing your right to bear arms that would defend your family and your community. Hiding in your home, quivering and helpless, as the police kick in doors is not "strong", IMHO.
Lady Red, I think it's awfully sad that American citizens feel they can no longer trust the police.
DeleteFor Israelis, certainly for me - and I have a British upbringing as well - the American distrust of federalism is a very foreign concept. Israel is really like one very large (or perhaps not so large) municipality. There is no split between federalism and localism. It's all local.
So when you ask about how we feel about the police in Israel, it's a completely different situation for two reasons. Firstly, as I said, we don't have any concept of a "federal" vs. a "local" police force. It's all one police force throughout the country, divided into regions and localities. e.g. in my hometown, Petach Tikva police is part of the Greater Tel Aviv region (or possibly Southern Sharon region, not quite sure). And they are part of the Israel Police. There is no higher level.
The police are funded both by the national government via the Ministry for Internal Security and by local governments. I've no idea of the proportions but it's a shared burden. And since it's all one big department, the police throughout Israel are trained and equipped uniformly.
Secondly, the police are not really militarized in the way you describe the police in the US. They are not subservient to the IDF but they do complement it. Yes, they are armed, unlike in the UK, but only with pistols, besides the SWAT teams.
In a case like the Boston terror attack, we would have the IDF providing overall security outside civilian areas, and probably intel as well, and the police doing the searching house-to-house, putting up and manning road-blocks within the cities etc. To be honest I don't know how the IDF and the police divide or pool their resources when it comes to a terror attack, but each unit has its own area of responsibility.
For example, that terrorist hunt on our daughter's wedding day: it was the police who closed all the roads and recommended that people stay indoors, but the information about the terrorists probably came from the IDF.
So the difference is that instead of having the police charging about with their fancy military-grade weapons, we have a regular police force backed up by the army itself. I don't think in the case of Boston that the US Army was present. correct me if I'm mistaken.
That's probably the main difference between us: the IDF is a visible presence even in civilian areas where necessary, backing up the police, providing extra security etc., whereas the US had the police doing military work.
Do we trust our police? In the main, I think yes. I don't think they're particularly competent when it comes to fighting petty crime, but when it comes to the big stuff I think they're doing OK.
We don't usually feel they're doing stuff just for show like you feel was done in Boston, at least not when it comes to terrorism. It's all so very immediate in Israel that we'd see soon enough if the police were all talk and no results.
I wanted to address this other point of yours:
DeleteThere is nothing "strong" about relinquishing your right to bear arms that would defend your family and your community. Hiding in your home, quivering and helpless, as the police kick in doors is not "strong", IMHO.
In Israel we do not have any right to bear arms. We can apply for a gun license, but more often than not the application is rejected. You have to have a really good solid reason to want a gun, and then you have to have a medical and a psych report before the police will give you a license. Then you have to have proper training, and renew your license as well as your medical, police report etc., every year.
If a terrorist is on the loose, probably most if not all civilians here will stay indoors and lock the doors. The only people who will go out with their arms are the community rapid-response teams if they're called out, who will carry out perimeter searches, guard the gates of the settlement etc.
Obviously if a terrorist is spotted and a householder has a gun he could shoot him, but there have been enough tragic cases of mistaken identity to make people think twice.
On the other hand I've never heard of police kicking down doors of innocent civilians here, at least not in cases of terrorism.
Perhaps our police are just better trained? They're certainly more experienced in this kind of stuff.
But I don't think there's any shame in "unarmed civilians cowering in their homes". That's the unfortunate reality of terrorism. It doesn't reflect badly on the civilians, on the police or on the government. If you don't want wild shoot-outs, with innocent civilians or even police getting caught in the cross-fire, then this is the only other option as far as I can see.