what triggers martial law?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I was floored by a comment the other day in a thread with Jeff about the heavy handed response by federal, state, and local Law Enforcement regarding the recent criminal activity (note I did not use the word 'terrorist'). He seemed fine with it, generally dismissing it as 'justified, in this case'.

The most conservative among us is fine. Which means that perhaps most of you may be fine with it as well. This is not a personal attack on anyone, especially Jeff; just a barometer, a bellwether of tolerance to such things.

Which begs the question, when does crime fighting cross the line into lockdowns of cities, creating an atmosphere (if not a reality) of martial law?

Others wonder the same:

I cannot help but wonder what the standard is that triggers the martial-law response we’re seeing in New England. If these bombers had murdered three but not caused as many injuries—if the sheer terror of their crime had not reached this magnitude—would Boston look like a totalitarian state right now? What if the police needed to find a serial killer? Or what if a city was home to lots of violent crime in general?

If the suspect escapes into another city tomorrow, can the police lock down one city after another until they find him? And how long will this go on? They might catch him and it might all end and Boston could be back to normal, if we can call it that, by the end of the weekend. What if he isn’t caught for a while? What if a future suspect implicated in a gruesome and dramatic criminal act next year manages to escape justice for months? Can the police now just shut down cities, transportation, and—as they did on Monday*—cell service for as long as they deem necessary? Should normal denizens really have no say of their own on whether they will risk the violent threats that might await them outside? If they have no right to walk about freely today without expecting, at a minimum, serious harassment from authorities, can the same be true on any other day?

                                                                       

This, from a local respected political blogger:

It is deeply concerning that the dominant corporate media narrative of recent events is that Boston was on lockdown and everybody is okay with it.  Really?

The images we have seen of tanks and agents of state, federal, and local government authorities, with guns and other weapons, rolling down our neighborhood streets, and going door to door, are absolutely horrifying.

But I’ve seen those images before as a victim of Hurricane Katrina who was in New Orleans, Louisiana at the time of the storm.  I had guns shoved in my face by Blackwater when I left my flooded friend’s house after several days in Uptown New Orleans, looking for help.  My friends also had guns shoved in their face as they tried to escape downtown.  I was one of the many people turned away from the Jefferson Parish line, also at gunpoint.

The rest of their posts cover additional concerns of mine better than I can rant here.

In my opinion, I am concerned. When a country's enemy is invading, martial law is sometimes needed, otherwise GTFO. Worse, this is the first tangible proof that some of the blind conspiracy nuts found a squirrel with this militarization issue. We did not see this type local heavy reponse during wars, why now?

What's your opinion? Situation required this response because the entire city was in danger of ....pressure cookers? A guy with a gun? A couple of guys on the run, shooting cops? What is the difference between a gun and a (relatively) small bomb.
All I ask is you keep things in context with Boston, and not try to divert your opinions with example scenarios or blame Bush or Obama. This is about the people's acceptance of this, not some conspiracy question.

Has America really lost it's balls?

warning: massive image count under cut










Land of the Free™

ETA: for those who insist the lockdown was 'voluntary' I present this AP report.

Comments

[404.livejournal.com]

The whole Boston scene reminded me of the movie "The Siege" when the army locks down NYC.

I for one am not a fan of police states and their media flunkies who wax poetic over the handling of this operation. When the police is indistinguishable from the military, there is a problem.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The primary difference between cops and the military is that the military can be held criminally responcible for shooting the wrong person.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Some more contents behind a cut, perhaps?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

is it really too long? If so, I'll make a change or two. I simply find that more people read quotes rather than cuts.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I get it. I do. I'm not comfortable with being okay with it, but there's no reason to think that this will be the status quo, nor does the outcome of it (where the guy was found mere minutes after the "lockdown" was lifted) even seem likely to happen again.

The problem with the reporting, though, is this:

It is deeply concerning that the dominant corporate media narrative of recent events is that Boston was on lockdown and everybody is okay with it. Really?

First, enough with the "corporate media narrative." That's a statement that carries a basic concept of being woefully misinformed and conspiratorial, and that isn't you at all.

Second, the Boston-area wasn't on some sort of "go outside and we shoot you" lockdown, it was entirely voluntary. People were free to move about as they wished, the community largely did not.

Why? Because a guy who threw pressure cooker bombs at police after a late evening shootout not three days after blowing up the Boston Marathon was at large.

There's a point in time when ideology has to go out the window. When things are the exact opposite of perfect and you have no other options. Hindsight being 20/20, yeah, it was probably overkill. It was also unprecedented in numerous ways, and unprecedented situations result in unprecedented scenarios to deal with them. If there's a bomb at next year's Marathon, I doubt this will be the same response now that we know more.

You know what I'm impressed by? We're 6 days out, and the response has not been "lock down the Marathon next year," or "we need more laws." It's been quite the opposite, more measured. I've been encouraged by the fact that so many people understand the TSA machinations are security theatre, but that there hasn't been a significant outcry for more restrictions? This entire episode has really renewed my faith in how we as a society are handling terrorism, not disappointed.

12 years ago we were upset for months, and rightfully so. It was a new, scary thing for our shores, a reality we didn't want to accept. This week, we took that reality and gave it the middle finger. It doesn't mean we were perfect, but we're a lot better.

tl;dr: Watertown wasn't martial law, the city wasn't locked down, and sometimes you have to try different things to see how they work. Ideology is not always a be-all end-all.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Everything else aside, do us the kindness of explaining why writing "corporate media narrative" is "woefully misinformed and conspiratorial"?

Is it not true that all major national U.S. news services are owned by just *a handful* of very large corporations (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6)? Is it not true that we have seen the corporate media agree to spin stories according to the desires of the U.S. government and especially its intelligence agencies before (http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php)?

Seems like a knee jerk reaction on your part to a statement that, while it certainly can be *exaggerated* is not without historical credibility. And I expected better from you ;p

[telemann.livejournal.com]

As a bleeding heart liberal, the authorities had to do what they had to do. I'm cool with it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What is the standard for "had to do"?

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

I have mixed feelings about the lockdown, and to be honest haven't totally processed it. I read somewhere (so take it with a grain of salt) that under similar circumstances it would only take 18 people and a few dozen homemade bombs to lock down half the US population, and that's kind of frightening.

At the moment I'm more concerned about the suspect, if they try and hold him as an enemy combatant then I'll be really disturbed.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Military lawyers are going to say they are against it. He doesn't fit ANYTHING in the UCMJ. He needs to be tried in a civilian court, just like any other murderer.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

If it's any consultation, apparently two of the perps were caught in only a week's time. 18 bombers deciding to go to war with the US would need a long term strategy.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The world is made out of "soft" targets.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I'm no expert on legal terms, but I think 'martial law' is considerably different from what happened in Boston. That may be why the term was never used by anyone. I'm liberal, and I have no problem with the way law enforcement worked in this situation. They did an outstanding job.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

I don't think this qualifies as martial law. More like 'mandatory evacuations' before major storms. The reality is they can't make you go or stay inside.

Its' a local governments way of saying, 'bad things are going to be happening here, we'd really like you to stay out of harms way so you don't become part of the drama."

Now I realize that some people are upset that they couldn't go out and get the bad guy with their constitutionally protected rocket launchers, but I think the cops/FBI, etc did a decent job without any additional asshats getting in the way and beng taken hostage or getting killed manpower.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

This looks a lot more like a massive police response than martial law. The two may look similar but there are some important differences. Some folks were going into work during the lockdown, it doesn't sound like people's constitutional rights were put on hold, there were just a lot more cops around than usual who were looking very closely for one person. After the car chase where the first guy was killed, it did seem that there was a huge risk that these guys had some intentions to taking a bunch of other folks with them.

Maybe it was an over-reaction by the police, but then I'd say we should be pretty willing to forgive an over-reaction that seems to have been done in good faith. The people in Boston seemed to have been pretty pleased with their police, not fearful. This reaction is pretty telling about how things were handled. In Seattle, after the WTO, I remember a very different reaction for example.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Not exactly unprecedented. USA has long history of armed and dangerous bad guys. The Sheriff/US Marshal would round up a posse and go from town to town, and house to house looking for the villain. Often in old cowboy movies the townsfolk would vacate the streets, shutter the windows and doors until the shootout was over. But Boston 2013 isn't Tombstone or Deadwood.

What's unprecedented is the size and scope of the what happened. This was much bigger lockdown then the Watts and Rodney King riots combined.

Martial Law is by definition a suspension of ordinary laws and freedoms, usually imposed by a military force but a suspension regardless. BPD, ATF, FBI etc were all pretty indistinguishable from military during the events, so I think the term is entirely appropriate.

While it was voluntary to stay home in Boston, it was certainly coerced to keep people home, both by announcements urging compliance and by unusual engagements with law enforcement. People couldn't travel with ease, nor could they organize a game of hoops at the park while Martial Law was in effect. While it keeps getting stated that compliance was "voluntary", it really wasn't.

While the unprecedented lock-down of Boston, suspension of rights and liberties are said to be an extraordinary occurrence, unlikely to be repeated as it had never happened before... well, I call bullshit. I believe we're witnessed the new normal response to getting the bad guy. Understandably it is certainly easier and more efficient to comb a large urban area without the hindrance of traffic.

But I have to follow the money. Apparently this lock-down cost approximately a third of a billion dollars to a full billion in lost economic activity!!! (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/04/what-will-boston-lockdown-cost-city/5350/) Not to forget the cost of the actual manhunt. So who benefits financially? It would seem that nobody does. But is that true?

The Greater Boston metropolitan area has the sixth-largest economy in the country and 12th-largest in the world. It's a seaport, a centre fro education, a hub of biotech and health science corporations and interestingly enough a major financial centre. Bain Capital, Diebold, Hewlett-Packard, John Hancock Financial, and Fidelity Investments just to name a few are all HQ'd in Boston. How would a large corporation benefit from having business closed and the streets cleared for a day?

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Great point about the money. Whose interests would be served by such a costly lockdown, especially if it would be continuous? (Great, now I'm going along the "conspiracy theorist" route...) Just to play devil's conspiracy theorist, possibly a competitor of one of those companies, whether domestic or foreign. (Can't rule out foreign, now that foreign money can be contributed to super PACs.) Sadly, I could see some competing CEO justify that as a business cost, as long as it can't be traced back to his company. Similar to how they might build in liability costs to a budget with the expectation that revenue will more than offset that amount. Or if someone wanted to devalue a company to make it easier to take over. I don't know if there is any insurance for loss of revenue due to terrorist-inspired lockdown. Or a competing seaport - if they can "brand" the city as unsafe, the competing seaport might be seen as safer and get more business. Or to prevent a scientific discovery from being finalized/patented.

There are probably political reasons, like if this happened on the day of an important congress vote, or (I shudder to even think this) an election day. Hopefully if something like that happened, the vote could be reasonably delayed.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"This was much bigger lockdown then the Watts and Rodney King riots combined."

I'm not sure how you can compare riots with a man hunt; or martial law that lasts several days with a voluntary lock-down.
During both riots there was a mandatory curfew from dusk til dawn. It is not unusual (while not exactly frequent) in the San Fernando Valley (part of the greater Los Angeles area) for several square miles to be cordoned off and a lock-down put in place for a man hunt ( one of the most infamous; a few years ago there was a fake "officer shot" at a high school. Not only was the neighborhood shut down for several hours, but the kids were in lock-down in their class rooms, and not even allowed to use a rest room).

I see nothing sinister in even mandatory lock-downs in case of a man hunt, since that seems to be the best method. Martial law on the other hand is probably best saved for things like riots.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"The most conservative among us"

What? Is that a fact?

Don't know what the situation is really like in Boston, but here in Florida there has been enforced curfews before during and after major Hurricanes to prevent looting and general endangerment (with power lines down etc.)

I wouldn't call that martial law really, not when there is much more fitting and dire uses for the term elsewhere in the world

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I think Jeff is, yes. Mostly based on his positions, even he did not disagree with the label.

Funny, most of the support for this police action seems to come from the more liberal posters. Which is really confusing, to be honest.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

While it had the appearance of martial law in some ways, I think people viewed this as simply being cooperative with law enforcement. It certainly seemed reasonable/justifiable; if everyone was out and about, there would be distractions everywhere, and it would probably be easier for the suspect to hide/get away. If everyone is inside, then the only movement on the street would likely be the suspect.

It also wasn't a cooked-up threat; it was a real threat, coming after what happened on Monday. If outside, they could get caught in crossfire, come across an undetonated bomb/grenade that the suspects had discarded, maybe even become a hostage. A big factor was the unknown. Don't minimize it by saying they were mere pressure cookers. To my knowledge, at the time, it was unknown if there were any accomplices, what kind of weapons/firepower the suspect still had, even where the suspect was/could have gone to.

Remember that they did call off the "lockdown" Friday night, before the suspect was caught. I don't believe they would have called it back on unless they caught the trail of the suspect. I don't see this being used for continuous, prolonged martial law. If it was prolonged, I think we'd start seeing vigilantes, people getting fed up and wanting to take matters into their own hands.

And semantics do matter. If it's "criminal activity," that suggests that the suspect will only kill/injure to protect himself. If it's "terrorism," that suggests that the suspect will seek to harm as many as possible, willing to die while doing so.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Oh I'm sure people 'cooperate' with martial law as well (as if they have a choice), which is why I asked the last question on my post.

Have we lost our balls?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

At first I read this as "marital law". And then there was the word "trigger". And I was like, ohlol.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

TW: MARRIAGETALK

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If people call the Boston lockdown martial law, they neither understand the concept nor are capable of recognizing it in practice.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

are you intimating there are 'kinder gentler' ways of coercion besides a formal declaration of martial law?

Plus there is the issue of Bostonians being caught inside a thing with limited knowledge of the situation, relying on an out of control media, forcing a cognitive dissonance that that is 'for their own good'

If it quacks like a duck....but you indicate without the formality of a declaration, everything is just peachy with law enforcement.

Also, bombs are relative. Their bomb, compared, say to the average IED was small in comparison. LE KNEW that you can't just throw a bomb at the cops, so they relied on crude pipe bombs (as reported when suspect 1 was gunned). Ergo their days as terrorist bombers ended the day of the race, and at that point, they became fugitives of justice.

Even better, let's see if suspect 2 ever goes to trial, or is kept as a 'terrorist' under the UCMJ.

ME, I'm just playing the canary in a coalmine. Let us see how this all plays out once the stories from 'ground zero' mesh with the current Star Spangled Police Love Fest going on in the media. Let the swooning begin!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

My initial reaction was similiar to yours, which lead me to a rather disturbing thought.

Is it just me or is the whacky fringe getting less whacky?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I too share your fear about the issue of the wacky crowd. That is why I indicated that hopefully their decade of warnings was just a coincidence, and not that the wackos may be on to more than we want to admit.


*shudder*

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I am not fine with it.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/apr/20/bill-rights-was-written-dzhokar-tsarnaev/

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the link

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Tell me again how the government never makes power plays and we should hand all our guns over? Or maybe CISPA is a more compelling argument?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I am firmly convinced that at the very least House Republicans are more than willing to turn this country into a police state. CISPA is completely inexcusable.