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.
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.
The new normal. Fascism is now American.
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.
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.
“Facts are stubborn things!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9prVDvr5o
Most likely that persons next of kin
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.
“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.
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?
Good read.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.