Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas Lucente: American liberty died in Boston where it was born
The Lima News ^ | Sunday, April 28, 2013 | Thomas Lucente

Posted on 04/28/2013 11:02:26 AM PDT by Deadeye Division

Thomas Lucente: American liberty died in Boston where it was born

By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr. tlucente@limanews.com 419-993-2095

The American liberty movement, with little argument, was pretty much born and nurtured in the environs of Boston. And that is apparently where it died.

In what can only be called the Siege of Watertown, the government essentially declared martial law in the Massachusetts town, put thousands of law-abiding Americans under house arrest and went from house to house frisking and searching homes while pointing automatic weapons at Americans. All to arrest a single teenager.

In the end, the terrorists won. America lost.

True, the dastardly crime of which the teenager is accused was vicious. Also true, the capture of the perpetrators was an important goal.

Still, in the end, it was just a crime. It certainly did not warrant the behavior of the police and military in the conduct of its “manhunt.”

A house-to-house search to hunt down a criminal is an egregious abuse of power. Your constitutional rights are more important than the capture of a criminal, even a terrorist.

Yes, the lockdown was, on its face, voluntary. But tell that to the men in black body armor wielding machine guns and tanks as they treated the public as suspects, sources of interference or targets for displays of governmental authority. Can you really give informed consent with an M16 in your face? Having had the business end of an M16 pointed at me by a government agent before, I know the answer.

The police narrative is the residents were fully cooperating with the lockdown and house-to-house search. Yet, videos taken by residents show this was not the case.

While the video of soldiers with tanks, attack helicopters and machine guns patrolling an American town and searching door-to-door was disturbing enough, the lack of an outcry from those outside the area of operations is even more disturbing.

Where, for example, is the outrage of the tea party? I am pretty sure the Sons of Liberty, the Boston group who, in 1773, destroyed 342 chests of tea by dumping them in Boston Harbor during the original Tea Party, would not have stood idly by and let government troops conduct a house-to-house search while placing the town under a form of house arrest.

Does anyone doubt Samuel Adams, if alive today, would be vehemently protesting the government’s actions?

When British soldiers murdered five innocent Americans and injured others three years before the Tea Party, did Bostonians run and cower in their homes? No, they stood their ground and only dispersed after being assured there would be a legitimate investigation into what we call today the Boston Massacre.

Then, a leading patriot and lawyer, who was deeply involved in the liberty movement, agreed to defend the soldiers to ensure a fair trial.

That lawyer, John Adams, wrote three years later: “The Part I took in Defence of … the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety. … It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently.”

Adams’ defense of those soldiers is the epitome of what it means to live in a free country. Despite being the enemy and despite the heinousness of the crime, they still deserved a fair trial that complied with all the rules.

Compare that with the government’s actions after Tsarnaev was arrested. The FBI was upset that he was read his rights and allowed to consult with an attorney.

Those defending the tyrannical actions of the government during the occupation of Watertown argue the government should be able to do whatever is necessary to protect the people, even suspending civil rights.

There is a thin line between that kind of thinking and concentration camps, as I’m sure thousands of Japanese-Americans from the 1940s could attest.

However, and this there can be no denying, there is no “public safety” exception to the Constitution.

Do constitutional protections make it harder for law enforcement officials to do their jobs? Certainly.

Civil rights are easy to protect when things are fine; however, they are most important during times of peril and should never be pushed aside, especially not at the point of a government gun.

Thomas J. Lucente Jr. is a veteran of the Iraq war, has a bachelor’s degree in history and a law degree from the University of Toledo. He has been published in newspapers, magazines and websites across the country. He can be heard on “Talk with Ron Williams” on WCIT-AM at 3 p.m. Thursdays (listen at http://940wcit.com). Readers may write to him at The Lima News, 3515 Elida Road, Lima, Ohio 45807-1538, or e-mail him at tlucente@limanews.com. His telephone number is 800-686-9924, ext. 2095, or 419-993-2095. Visit his blog at http://www.lucente.org. Follow him on Twitter at http://tho.lu/twitter, Google Plus at http://tho.lu/google, and Facebook at http://tho.lu/facebook.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: boston; liberty

1 posted on 04/28/2013 11:02:26 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

Well he’s right to a degree. They tried it in Boston to see who would sqwawk about it and nobody did so look for it to happen again soon.


2 posted on 04/28/2013 11:10:37 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Yep. Proof of Sheeple.


3 posted on 04/28/2013 11:16:28 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

The new normal. Fascism is now American.


4 posted on 04/28/2013 11:17:50 AM PDT by Deathtomarxists (collapse death heartburn heartache dingdongs diaherea)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

The rounding up of the family at gun point reminded me of rounding up of the jews in WW2. They all looked terrified and their were kids who were crying. Then the thug in the Humvee pointing his gun at the person in the window made my blood boil, I would have probably gotten shot because I would be right in that pigs face. No man points a gun at you unless he is going to shoot you. I would have been dead for sure.


5 posted on 04/28/2013 11:19:02 AM PDT by crazydad (Obamamohamed is a traitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

Did anyone refuse to let the police search their home? If so, did the police enter anyway? That person would have a terrific lawsuit to pursue.


6 posted on 04/28/2013 11:20:00 AM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

“Facts are stubborn things!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9prVDvr5o


7 posted on 04/28/2013 11:27:28 AM PDT by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
That person would have a terrific lawsuit to pursue.

Most likely that persons next of kin

8 posted on 04/28/2013 11:28:15 AM PDT by clamper1797 (De-throne King Obozo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

If it is true that Mohammadan terrorists hate us because of our freedom, and act as they do to undermine our freedom, then they have indeed accomplished their mission.

Never have so few, armed with so little, instilled so much fear in so many.


9 posted on 04/28/2013 11:33:36 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

“That person would have a terrific lawsuit to pursue.”

History clearly bears out the severe ramifications suffered by society’s enforcers violating natural rights. In recent history the pletora of lawsuits filed following WWII by the inmates of the camps throughout Europe not to mention those whose rights were violated by Pol Pot in Cambodia. (Sarcasm) As if the tag was needed.


10 posted on 04/28/2013 11:38:20 AM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

I wonder what they did if no one was home? Did they just axe the door down or worse shoot through the lock with a door breacher shotgun, then the owner comes home a week later to find their home trashed?


11 posted on 04/28/2013 11:41:15 AM PDT by MachIV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

Good read.


12 posted on 04/28/2013 11:42:52 AM PDT by alarm rider (Basically, we are toast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division; All
Thank you for referencing that article Deadeye Division. Please bear in mind that my critique of the article is directed against Thomas Lucente and not you.
Lucente: Still, in the end, it was just a crime (emphasis added). It certainly did not warrant the behavior of the police and military in the conduct of its “manhunt.”

There's a rewrite of history going on here. It wasn't just a crime. After all, the suspected bomber had possibly caused many people to die and many others to be injured. And authorities didn't know when the carnage was going to stop. So I'd say that martial law was appropriate for this situation. And if martial law was not appropriate, then when is martial law appropriate?

Also, let's say that all the neighbors had firearms to protect themselves. But are we to assume that the neighbors had trained themselves to not kill each other in their own crossfire when trying to take down a possibly armed suspect? (I suppose that if you live in Hollywood then you don't have to worry about crossfire.)

Also, given unknown time restraints, I think it's ludicrous to expect some judge to have to take the time to evaluate every search warrant request for every house in the neighborhood where the bomber was finally captured. (On the other hand, I know that Hollywood could make a scene of a judge doing just that. After all, Hollywood is a master of time dilation.)

Okay, what am I overlooking?

13 posted on 04/28/2013 12:11:26 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Taking away our second amendment rights is a much bigger deal ... than what happened in Boston..
14 posted on 04/28/2013 12:17:07 PM PDT by GOPJ (The screed of so-called journalists: 'If it doesn't fit, you must omit.' - - freeper Vigilanteman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chulaivn66

Those societies were gone - already under tyrants. We still have SOME civil rights & guilty people have gone free when their rights were violated. The people who were rousted out of their house - no doubt without a valid search warrant - have an actionable case. It should be taken to court on the principle of the thing. The police had no authority to do what they did. If it had been a polite knock on the door, with a request to search, voluntarily granted, it would be one thing. This is entirely another thing!


15 posted on 04/28/2013 12:29:28 PM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MachIV

If there was any objections, the media is not reporting it. The official message is that everyone welcomed the searches and cooperated fully. I doubt that any objections would be reported and anyone who dared to demand a search warrant would find themselves is dire circumstances.


16 posted on 04/28/2013 12:31:03 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

You are overlooking the fact that they knew who they were looking for and the fact that under the 4th amendment all of this was illegal.

When the blond blue eyed folk or the black folk came to the door, it would be a pretty good bet it wasn’t the bomber. Then the treated them like criminals.

Disgusting.

As it was, the schmuck was hiding where they already searched. So much for that.

I don’t care if it was Osama Bin Laden hiding there...you do not treat citizens like the criminals you are looking for. This writer is totally correct.


17 posted on 04/28/2013 1:17:15 PM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Adder; All
You are overlooking the fact that they knew who they were looking for and the fact that under the 4th amendment all of this was illegal.

I respectfully disagree that authorities were confident that they who they were looking for. This is evidenced by the MIT cop whom the bomber had killed earlier.

18 posted on 04/28/2013 1:26:32 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division
America is dieing in the cities, as Thomas Jefferson predicted it would.

"The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution".

Thomas Jefferson

19 posted on 04/28/2013 1:31:51 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

If there was a terrorist attack and you had a watch list, would you drop in on two family members on the list that live within 10 miles? Would you pull their Mass Drivers license for a picture? They didn’t do that, that kind of prejudicial approach is just, well...”distasteful”.

Contemporaniously, we can now declare martial law and float a lie to avoid early scrutiny. We can lie and say he had a gun and attempted suicide.

What if an in innocent person (or family) had been negligently shot dead during this shelter in place order in Boston, what story would the float to keep people calm? That’s just part of the sausage making process now, right? That’s how they serve the greater good.

How do you reel this all back in? We’ve crossed the rubicon, this stuff is reminiscent of the Russian KGB or East German Stazi.


20 posted on 04/28/2013 1:48:09 PM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

Police Say The Naked Man Arrested In Boston Was Not Tamerlan Tsarnaev
On Thursday night while police were hunting in Watertown, Mass. for bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, at one point they arrested a naked man who looks a lot like Tamerlan.

Police say the naked man is not Tamerlan, despite various conspiracy theories going around the Internet.

According to the official account, Tamerlan died after a shootout with cops, riddled with bullets and shrapnel before being run over by his brother who was fleeing the scene in an SUV.

Take a look: I dare you!

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-naked-man-mystery-role-in-boston-2013-4#ixzz2RnIPaCad

FBI

The Watertown police department got back to us via email just to say that the naked man was not Tamerlan Tsarnaev (pictured on right and in high-res here).

The shootout with the Tsarnaev brothers occurred on Laurel Street. The journalist interviewed in this video describes naked man’s capture near Nichols and Dexter, literally down the street from the shootout.

Naked man was apparently stripped, questioned, clothed, questioned some more, and reportedly let go. It’s likely police stripped him because they were under citywide bomb threat and wanted to make sure he didn’t have a suicide vest, but the police did not comment on that.

Needless to say, Business Insider is interested to hear Naked Man’s personal story — send any tips to tips@businessinsider.com.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-naked-man-mystery-role-in-boston-2013-4#ixzz2RnIPaCad


21 posted on 04/28/2013 2:13:23 PM PDT by STD (One day closer to street justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

“Those societies were gone - already under tyrants. We still have SOME civil rights & guilty people have gone free when their rights were violated.” Your statements reinforce what I wrote. How do you think those societies arrived at the condition they were in? No one “manned up” so to speak to resist. They relied on the other guy to do the “heavy lifting” and make the sacrifices. They probably hoped the courts would rule in their favor and put a bloodless stop to the predation. As far as an actionable case you only meet that criterion for “standing” in a court after whatever occurs comes to pass. No help to you after your body falls to the bottom of the ditch and your survivors only method of salvation becomes a neverending quest for freedom by participating in the blood sports in the arena. The black-robbed wonders might to decline hearing the case. What then? Justice denied? As if a judge is the sole arbiter of when your rights are violated and what actions are available to you to guarantee their continued relevance to your life.

The key statement is “The police had no authority to do what they did.” If not why did they do it? They supposedly know and abide by the laws of the land. Why were they allowed to violate the law by their supervisors and the political hacks who appointed them? If they had no authority to do what they did citizens had the right and the duty to refuse to comply and resist by whatever means necessary. Would they survive the encounter? Probably not. But their resistance would have demonstrated they were not going to be relegated to the level of slaves and may well have aroused the response of fellow citizens. Imagine the Youtube video of the thugs actions, the reactions depicting the violations and subsequent use of unauthorized force hitting the internet web. Tahrir Square American style anyone?

All I see taking place indicates the authorities have taken the high ground overseeing the field and no resistance of a meaningful nature is being offered. In fact what I see are sniveling cowards allowing their freedoms to evaporate before their eyes while at the same instant bemoaning the loss. This will not end well. There are far too many who truly see what is happening; although I will admit their numbers are diminshing. Eventually those remaining few will resist.

Cheers.


22 posted on 04/28/2013 2:28:32 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: chulaivn66

Yes, I see that also. The will to fight is fading, & I don’t know what would light a fire under people these days.


23 posted on 04/28/2013 2:34:25 PM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

Stand your ground. Have a firm basis for doing so gained from the understanding of your natural rights as a human being and never waver. If a fight on a frontline in a war against an enslaving enemy is justification, a fight in your front yard with an enemy having the same intent, uniform or no, is as well. There is no difference between the two. You know right from wrong and so do they. Hold them to their oath and duty.

Good luck.


24 posted on 04/28/2013 2:43:39 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division

That was my exact thought, watching the videos the other day. Voluntary at the end of a gun is not my idea of voluntary. Watching how they treated each one coming out of their houses...as if a terrorist...was just mind-boggling! They were yelled at, made to hold their hands over their heads, patted down, etc. Outrageous!


25 posted on 04/28/2013 2:59:42 PM PDT by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

“Taking away our second amendment rights is a much bigger deal ... than what happened in Boston”

What happened in Boston was de facto Martial law. What if when the SWAT showed up to search and take you out of the house they had just confiscated all your weapons at the same time? Its a big deal.


26 posted on 04/28/2013 3:20:42 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Shery

They’re all juiced up on roids.


27 posted on 04/28/2013 3:36:07 PM PDT by freedomtrail (EEOC- Eventual Elimination Of Caucasians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
I live in Florida - where we have things like 'mandatory evacuations' for hurricanes. If you don't go cops will come by with warnings. If you still refuse they'll ask you to write your social security number on your arm so it'll be easier to identify the body.

That usually works.

But they don't force you to go. I'll bet if some of the people in Boston had refused to allow their home to be checked they wouldn't have been checked.. It would have been a stupid choice, but cops would have respected it. I still feel gun grabbers are more dangerous to our rights.

28 posted on 04/28/2013 4:46:43 PM PDT by GOPJ (The screed of so-called journalists: 'If it doesn't fit, you must omit.' - - freeper Vigilanteman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division
It's also where the 'first shot' of the Next American Revolution was also fired. !!!

Boston Terror, CIA’s Graham Fuller & CIA Operation-the Caucasus

Saturday, 27. April 2013 by Sibel Edmonds

Graham Fuller: Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege, FBI Gladio-B Target, Handler-Sponsor of Turkey’s Imam Gulen

A major break in the Boston Terror CIA Connection took place last night when I came across a post outing CIA Operative Graham Fuller as the father of the woman married to Boston terror suspect’s infamous uncle Ruslan Tsarni.

Further confirmation of this bombshell was received via mainstream reporter Laura Rozen here. Let me first provide a few excerpts from the original reporting site (a real alternative media):

Boston Bombers’ Uncle Married Daughter of Top CIA Official

The uncle of the two suspected Boston bombers in last week’s attack, Ruslan Tsarni, was married to the daughter of former top CIA official Graham Fuller . Ruslan Tsarni married the daughter of former top CIA official Graham Fuller, who spent 20 years as operations officer in Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong.

In 1982 Fuller was appointed the National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia at the CIA, and in 1986, under Ronald Reagan, he became the Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, with overall responsibility for national level strategic forecasting. …

Now, take a look at the most explosive aspect of this original report on Graham Fuller’s outing in the CIA Boston Terror Connection [All Emphasis Mine]:

On a more ominous note, Graham Fuller was listed as one of the American Deep State rogues on Sibel Edmonds’ State SecretsPrivilege Gallery,. Edmonds explained it featured subjects of FBI investigations she became aware of during her time as an FBI translator.

Criminal activities were being protected by claims of State Secrets, she asserted. After Attorney General John Ashcroft went all the way to the Supreme Court to muzzle her under a little-used doctrine of State Secrets, she put up twenty-one photos, with no names. One of them was Graham Fuller. …

I presented CIA’s Graham Fuller as one of the top culprits in my State Secrets Privilege Case when the government invoked the State Secrets Privilege and several additional gag orders to cover up the FBI’s investigations and files pertaining to CIA-NATO terror operations in Central Asia & the Caucasus since the mid-1990s.

Guess what? I provided this information to the US media long before it became public in 2008 via my website Not a single media outlet (including quasi and pseudo ones) was willing to touch this. And this, despite of all the gag orders, state secrets privilege invocations, congressional gag orders … you name it. I could name more than a dozen publications that said: ‘no way.’

Not only that. I have been covering one of the main CIA operation figures in Central Asia & the Caucasus-Imam Fethullah Gulen, and this Turkish Imam’s relationship and official Connections to CIA’s Graham Fuller. I’ve been doing this since 2009. Let me provide you with a few explosive examples and excerpts.

Graham Fuller, Crisis Actor Filmed Twice By CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbqVqI1cWXc Perhaps budgetary restraints brought on by the Sequester forced CIA Ops Director Graham Fuller to utilize this Crisis Actor at the Boston Bombing and in Watertown where the alleged bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev Attempted to Surrender.

Watch these two videos and make up your mind before the MSM and the Regime closes the historical record forever.

29 posted on 04/28/2013 4:54:07 PM PDT by STD (One day closer to street justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deadeye Division
It's also where the 'first shot' of the Next American Revolution was also fired. !!!

Boston Terror, CIA’s Graham Fuller & CIA Operation-the Caucasus

Saturday, 27. April 2013 by Sibel Edmonds

Graham Fuller: Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege, FBI Gladio-B Target, Handler-Sponsor of Turkey’s Imam Gulen

A major break in the Boston Terror CIA Connection took place last night when I came across a post outing CIA Operative Graham Fuller as the father of the woman married to Boston terror suspect’s infamous uncle Ruslan Tsarni.

Further confirmation of this bombshell was received via mainstream reporter Laura Rozen here. Let me first provide a few excerpts from the original reporting site (a real alternative media):

Boston Bombers’ Uncle Married Daughter of Top CIA Official

The uncle of the two suspected Boston bombers in last week’s attack, Ruslan Tsarni, was married to the daughter of former top CIA official Graham Fuller . Ruslan Tsarni married the daughter of former top CIA official Graham Fuller, who spent 20 years as operations officer in Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong.

In 1982 Fuller was appointed the National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia at the CIA, and in 1986, under Ronald Reagan, he became the Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, with overall responsibility for national level strategic forecasting. …

Now, take a look at the most explosive aspect of this original report on Graham Fuller’s outing in the CIA Boston Terror Connection [All Emphasis Mine]:

On a more ominous note, Graham Fuller was listed as one of the American Deep State rogues on Sibel Edmonds’ State SecretsPrivilege Gallery,. Edmonds explained it featured subjects of FBI investigations she became aware of during her time as an FBI translator.

Criminal activities were being protected by claims of State Secrets, she asserted. After Attorney General John Ashcroft went all the way to the Supreme Court to muzzle her under a little-used doctrine of State Secrets, she put up twenty-one photos, with no names. One of them was Graham Fuller. …

I presented CIA’s Graham Fuller as one of the top culprits in my State Secrets Privilege Case when the government invoked the State Secrets Privilege and several additional gag orders to cover up the FBI’s investigations and files pertaining to CIA-NATO terror operations in Central Asia & the Caucasus since the mid-1990s.

Guess what? I provided this information to the US media long before it became public in 2008 via my website Not a single media outlet (including quasi and pseudo ones) was willing to touch this. And this, despite of all the gag orders, state secrets privilege invocations, congressional gag orders … you name it. I could name more than a dozen publications that said: ‘no way.’

Not only that. I have been covering one of the main CIA operation figures in Central Asia & the Caucasus-Imam Fethullah Gulen, and this Turkish Imam’s relationship and official Connections to CIA’s Graham Fuller. I’ve been doing this since 2009. Let me provide you with a few explosive examples and excerpts.

Graham Fuller, Crisis Actor Filmed Twice By CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbqVqI1cWXc Perhaps budgetary restraints brought on by the Sequester forced CIA Ops Director Graham Fuller to utilize this Crisis Actor at the Boston Bombing and in Watertown where the alleged bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev Attempted to Surrender.

Watch these two videos and make up your mind before the MSM and the Regime closes the historical record forever.

30 posted on 04/28/2013 4:54:15 PM PDT by STD (One day closer to street justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10; Adder

The other thing he is missing is that they did not declare martial law. This was police work by local cops. A governor or President is required to declare martial law, and then, the military is in charge with the rules of war applying.


31 posted on 04/28/2013 8:12:39 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Defiant; All
The other thing he is missing is that they did not declare martial law.

While I appreciate everybody's concern about serious constitutional questions with the way that the Watertown police handled the alleged bomber, I'm also concerned that delays necessary to comply with procedures may have resulted in even more deaths. After all, if I understand the following article correctly, I'm not sure of the condition of one Watertown law-enforcement officer who was seriously injured in confrontation with the alleged bomber.

Lone officer confronted marathon bombing suspects in firefight, chief says

Also, note the last part of Clause 3 of Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay (emphasis added).

Although the clause emphasized above is not directely applicable to the Watertown situation, it reflects that the Founders understood that authorities may sometimes be forced to act because of time restraints.

I was getting ready to post but had an interesting insight. Note that the Founding States had decided that government prohibitions / limitations of power in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, only to feds. (14A changed that.) So 4A's privacy protection without warrant originally did not apply to states.

32 posted on 04/28/2013 11:43:06 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

IIRC, by the time they tried to rob the curb store, they had pics and names. And certainly they had a good idea after the shoot-out in the street.


33 posted on 04/29/2013 3:35:01 AM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Okay, what am I overlooking?

Same as all the other Lov Information Citizens (LIC) who have pontificated here on this issue. Just do some reading: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag3_user.html especially the part that says:

The exceptions are said to be "jealously and carefully drawn,"

Next think about the fact that the police lost the suspect so the only applicable exception, hot pursuit, no longer applied. If in your reading you find another exception to the 4th from case law, please post. What you cannot do is pretend that undeclared martial law is ok unless you show some case law that it is.

34 posted on 04/29/2013 3:48:01 AM PDT by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Note that the Founding States had decided that government prohibitions / limitations of power in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, only to feds.

The 4th was incorporated in the 60's. All the cases were specific individuals (e.g. Terry stop) or cars or houses. Houses have the most protection. Any unrelated criminal case arising from Watertown (e.g. if the cops had found drugs after busting into someone's house) would be laughed out of court. There is simply no case law supporting home searches with the few exceptions that only apply to specific houses. The cop must pursue a suspect into a specific house. A cop may have a hunch about a specific house and that is legal grounds (has to be explicit). A cop might see something in the yard or through a window which would make the search legal. Or the cops can get permission from a homeowner or any representative (essentially anyone from a teenager on up can legally let them in). But that is it.

35 posted on 04/29/2013 3:58:13 AM PDT by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Adder

Whether the cops knew who they were looking for or not is completely irrelevant. It is illegal to go house to house looking for anyone or anything, known or unknown.


36 posted on 04/29/2013 4:00:25 AM PDT by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Understood: I agree it was a horrible act by the cops.

What stunned me more was the ease with which it was done...nary a recorded peep from what I saw...


37 posted on 04/29/2013 5:37:48 AM PDT by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: crazydad

Is that video of the thug in the humvee still up? I haven’t been able to find it for a while...


38 posted on 04/29/2013 6:06:00 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

I was able to save the image. But not sure how to post to Freerepublic.


39 posted on 04/29/2013 7:53:29 AM PDT by crazydad (Obamamohamed is a traitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
The Constitution and Bill of Rights permit exceptions in exigent circumstances. The 4th and 5th amendments have long lines of cases that discuss these situations. The Watertown police raids did not constitute exigent circumstances. All they knew was that a lone bomber was somewhere in a 5 mile radius, so they decided to search all the houses. That's nuts. As I said on another thread, if the cops had information that a nuke was located in such a wide area, maybe a house to house search would be justified, but that was not the case here. What should have happened was that the cops went to the doors of each house, knocked and asked the person who answered if they had seen anything suspicious, while checking for signs that the person was in distress. If they wanted to physically search the inside of the house or the premises, they needed to ask, and not with the gun pointed at the homeowner, and not after frisking the occupants.

There were large bombs that killed lots of people in the anarchist and communist violence in the 1920s. I don't think the people who were dealing with that decided that the solution was to violate the rights of the law abiding citizens. This is not unique, only the response of law enforcement is new.

40 posted on 04/29/2013 8:49:30 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: crazydad
If you know the url where the image was online, you type:

where "url" is the web address of the image. You have to put the image url in quotes, or it won't work.

If you have it on your computer, you need to upload it to a photo sharing site and then get a link to it, and then use that link as your url.

41 posted on 04/29/2013 8:53:36 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Sorry, my attempt to show you the http code for posting an image didn't go through correctly. Let's try it this way:

img src="URL">

except put a < in front of img.

42 posted on 04/29/2013 8:58:44 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: palmer
A cop may have a hunch about a specific house and that is legal grounds (has to be explicit). A cop might see something in the yard or through a window which would make the search legal.

That is called "articulable grounds for suspicion", and a cop has to have them to have probable cause for a search or seizure. Still have to have a warrant, except in exigent circumstances.

43 posted on 04/29/2013 9:03:36 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Makes sense, thanks. The cases I saw had exigent circumstances plus hunches or items in public view or public hearing, so no warrant.


44 posted on 04/29/2013 10:10:50 AM PDT by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Defiant; All
All they knew was that a lone bomber was somewhere in a 5 mile radius, ...

This is not all that they knew. I'm unsure of the series of events after the bombing, but Watertown police were undoubtedly very much aware of the carnage in Boston from televised news reports, also that a police officer had been killed on the MIT campus, and that a resident had phoned in concerning evidece of an injured trespasser. It's not like the only information that they had about some bomber was unexpectedly phoned in from an anonymous caller.

So with all due respect Defiant, you seem to be in denial of the series of tragic events which prompted Watertown police to react the way that they did.

As a side note, as I had mentioned in another post, Bill of Right's prohibitions on government powers did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was ratified.

45 posted on 04/29/2013 10:50:43 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Watertown police were undoubtedly very much aware of the carnage in Boston from televised news reports, also that a police officer had been killed on the MIT campus, and that a resident had phoned in concerning evidece of an injured trespasser.

By your logic, all of Chicago should be locked down, and a house to house search conducted.

We were all aware of the bombing in Boston, and that these guys killed a cop. That didn't make the searches reasonable or legally justified. That made a police presence in the community justified, and it may have justified a search that included visits to the front door of homes in that area, in the manner I described. Without any information that the bomber was in a particular house, there was no justification for forced entry into any houses, and especially for frisking the occupants. It was disgusting.

The fourth amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, nor shall warrant issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Our criminal law professor in law school, a lib, made us memorize this amendment. You may have your opinion about what it says, or what our policy should be in connection with a terrorist bombing in which 3 people were killed and dozens injured, but your opinion does not change the text or history of the 4th amendment. It does not allow what the police did in Watertown, and I am surprised that someone here would think it could.

Even in leftist California, when Dorner was running around in the mountains, the cops didn't do this to people. They respectfully went up to their cabins and checked for suspicious circumstances or odd behavior by the homeowners. They didn't treat them like foreign combatants. The people of Watertown were treated in the way the John Kerry described Iraqi jihadis being treated.

46 posted on 04/29/2013 11:12:49 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Defiant; All
By your logic, all of Chicago should be locked down, and a house to house search conducted.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Not only does Wikipedia show that Chicago has a population under 3 million, Watertown over 30,000, but Chicago is arguably a war zone anyway. In other words, your neighbors in Watertown know when you sneeze. Chicago residents, on the other hand, probably hearing gunfire coming from all directions 24/7 and are probably somewhat desensitized to it.

Also, let's say Chicago law enforcement authorities have "all the time in the world" to obtain search warrants. So why isn't the constitutional process stopping street warfare in Chicago?

47 posted on 04/29/2013 12:47:56 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

I think your heart is in the right place, but I am glad that the law does not agree with you—yet.


48 posted on 04/29/2013 3:31:13 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson