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:
( Read more... )
This, from a local respected political blogger:
( caveat: he is a progressive )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
( I find this unacceptable )Land of the Free™
ETA: for those who insist the lockdown was 'voluntary' I present this AP report.