NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete
from the probably-need-to-hit-CTRL-Z-on-the-Amendments-to,-I-suppose dept
Good news, everyone. The terrorists will win and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to help. Of course, his speech is all about not letting the terrorists win. But he's giving them exactly what they want.
The Boston Marathon bombing was bound to generate this sort of reaction. It's a forgone conclusion that a tragic event like this will lead to political grandstanding and expansions of policies and plans deleterious to privacy and individual freedom. It's been twisted to argue for harsher immigration policies and held up as evidence that surveillance efforts need to be expanded.
But Bloomberg sees something else, something much more malignant than more cameras and fewer immigrants. He sees this attack as an indication that our country has outgrown its founding principles and that we can't be truly "safe" without altering the fabric of the nation.
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”You hear that, citizens? You have a "legitimate worry" and it's followed by a magnificent "but" that leads directly to a call to alter our current laws and the Constitution itself, in order to make us more "secure" than the "olden days." As these two are changed to Bloomberg's liking, I would imagine our "legitimate worries" will be slowly stripped of their legitimacy as Constitutional protections are altered to better fit today's (imagined) realities.
Bloomberg also conjures up the 9/11 attacks to assist in his burial of these pesky formative documents from "olden days."
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.Yes, we know there are people who want to "take away our freedoms." The problem is that, increasingly, these people are politicians and legislators -- politicians and legislators who enact laws that enable agencies like the NSA and the DHS to strip away our rights. The terrorists? They only "take away our freedoms" if we let them. And people like Bloomberg seem more than willing to capitulate to the implied demand.
Oh, but Bloomberg is worried that one aspect of the post-Boston bombing might result in curtailed rights. His one concern? That we, the people who "need" more "security" than rights, might take this recent attack to paint the Muslim religion as a hotbed of terrorism.
“What we can't do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”When we add this all up, this is what we get. Bloomberg is concerned about branding a certain religion as a terrorist breeding ground, something his police department has been doing for years. That's what's troubling to Bloomberg: some sort of lazy racism taking root. Reconfiguring the Constitution to fit his conception of the modern age? Rewriting current laws and drafting new ones to meet an exaggerated threat? Curtailing freedom and privacy in the name of "security?" This doesn't phase Bloomberg at all.
As Benjamin Franklin famously said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Bloomberg is in a hurry to give up your liberties. Many other politicians and legislators are more than willing to do the same. After all, these changes won't affect them nearly as much as they'll affect their constituents. But they'll be able to coattail-ride any foiled terrorist plots or relatively smooth post-attack investigations as "victories" and hold them up as "evidence" that they were right to carve up the Constitution in the name of safety and security.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: boston, michael bloomberg, nyc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a verb in the making here ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see a verb in the making here ...
Here's hoping your saying goes Viral !!!
"He's gonna Bloomberg your constitutional rights!"
AWESOME !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I see a verb in the making here ...
You can serve & die in the military, but you can't smoke until you're 21. - "I've been Bloomberged!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see a verb in the making here ...
In all fairness, he did say interpretation, and that is exactly what SCOTUS is supposed to be doing. As described directly on their site:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see a verb in the making here ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How true though.
Categorize anybody who cleaves to any religion as a terrorist and ensure that affiliation to any religion disbars a person from any elected office and there's a good chance that everyone will be happier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that a rule should be instituted that any politician invoking any religious document, should immediately be dismissed from office. This is a secular nation and no religion should interfere with the running of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Categorize anybody who cleaves to any religion as a terrorist and ensure that affiliation to any religion disbars a person from any elected office and there's a good chance that everyone will be happier."
You agree with this statement. How much hate is there in you? A terrorist, for belonging to a religion? Barred from public office for a belief?
And by the way. No, everyone would not be happier. Perhaps YOU would be happier, for about two hours. After that, there would be open rebellion against whoever it was that decided to take away everyone's freedom of religion. It would take a lot to get people to rebel in this country, but that's one of the things that would do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you know that 7 states ban atheists from holding public office?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your rant. Who needs integrity when God is on your side?
Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right back at you. From your link:
"these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century."
"In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Any old law to that effect is not enforced and not enforceable. They should be repealed anyway, but they might as well not exist as far as having any actual legal effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So ya, I want my political figures steeped in the most backward, outmoded religious beliefs they can muster up the courage to defend because we all know we want to hasten the end times. Am I right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think most people die of natural causes or illness...but what the hell, lets blame the religious types.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
China is officially a "secular nation". Maybe you'd like it there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did secularism give us laws against murder and thievery? No, the Bible did!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The sackcloth of freedom chafes our political masters, while the gossamer robes of religion stretch as much as this metaphor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Continue to Question
Also, not sure if you saw, but the AP twitter account was hacked and reported that there were explosions at the white house and Obama was injured. It caused the market to flash crash a dried up liquidity. Must have crushed people with stop losses in place. There is no real market.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-23/ap-reports-two-explosions-white-house-obama-inju red
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
ALL anyone who's rich EVER does is scheme how to get yet more money and power. It's iron law that anyone who's good at accumulating material wealth begins thinking that they're annointed by God to rule over the rest of us. They use any excuse that comes around to justify their power grabs. -- And manufacture the excuses if needed, because as God set them up in power anything they do is automatically right.
Taxes on unearned income should be steeply progressive to keep The Rich within some limits -- and that doesn't mean YOU: instead of the current taxes on wages, should only be on unearned income, and when gets above oh, $10 million a year, the rate should be at least 100% -- higher if needed.
Steeeply progressive tax rates are the ONLY non-violent method proven to keep The Rich from going insane with power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
I got news for you. Not all rich people are like that. Some rich people are very philanthropic. Some rich people do a lot of good for their communities.
Don't let that get in the way of a good (off topic) rant, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
however...
2. *most* rich pukes were once people; amazing but true ! ! !
*HOWEVER*, i know there ARE psycho/socio changes which come with being 'rich', MANY of them ungood...
the fact that there is one out of a hundred rich pukes who deign to throw us a bone is besides the point...
3. the last time i saw numbers, POOR people GAVE MORE (as a percentage of income) than rich people... just sayin'...
NOT to mention, a LOT of average types do NOT get tax write-offs for their donations like rich pukes... NOT to mention, rich pukes get tax write-offs for 'charity balls', etc, which are a TOTAL RIPOFF... they are an excuse for rich pukes to pamper themselves AND TAKE A TAX WRITE-OFF for it... *maybe* 5-10% actually goes to 'charity'... *MAYBE*...
all those charity things rich pukes do are basically scams to line their buddies pockets, get some free booze, fancy horse's ovaries (sic), and generally hobnob with their rich puke friends while congratulating themselves on how swell they are for tossing some crumbs to the hoi polloi...
...AND get a big fat write-off !
(in essence, WE 99% end up subsidizing their 'charity'...)
really, we could live a LOT better if ALL the rich pukes were used to stuff sinkholes... if a couple 'nice' ones got tossed in by mistake, well, they don't lose too much sleep over us 99% getting fucked over, i won't lost too much over a couple rich pukes being sacrificed for the good of 99%...
do NOT carry water for the rich, they hire their own people for that...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
It's this kind of thinking that causes the crap you rally against. Being so willing to sacrifice the innocent to get back at the guilty. We must stop terrorists so we put up with sexual harassment at the airports. We want to stop overeating so we must ban all large soda. We have been slighted by the rich so kill them all.
Isn't it this kind of thinking that caused the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the Holocaust? Someone must be punished and to hell with the collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
Okay dude, I agree with you but please don't use the words "Dark Ages" in this context ever again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again, The Off topic are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
You keep pushing this unattainable notion (at a group of people who have grown to have zero respect for your opinions, no less).
Are you ever going to define what "unearned income" means to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
Someone wants something done, you do it and they pay you for your work, you earn income.
Then a couple [thousand/million/whatever] other people want that thing, and since you (or the person who paid you the first time) has a special law blocking anyone else from providing them with what they want, the only way they can get it is to pay you, and you don't have to do any work to make them keep paying, it's all handled by the gov't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
Well, I think I get what you're saying here - just not sure I agree with it 100%. If a company is providing me a service I value, even if it is serving up content they didn't create, it's still my feeling that they have "earned" what I pay them for the service.
Based on Blue's comments over the last couple of years or so, I get the impression that things like return on investment capitol, inheritances and basically any paycheck over $100,000/year is "unearned" in his mind.
If he's going to continue his rants about the rich and unearned income, I think he should at the very least qualify what he is actually talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
When it comes to copyrighted (copywritten?) content, however, the service is not what you pay for, you are paying for permission to do something (make a copy of content) (ie: a license to the content), and the only reason that license is required is because gov't says so.
If you are paying for a service (or anything else that requires effort on someone else's part) rather than a license, that is a whole different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." - William J Brennan Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington
"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insideous forces working from within." General Douglas MacArthur
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have." - Gerald Ford
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but if we can erode our privacy and add more surveillance more quickly, if we are lucky, we can beat them to it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think so. The terrorists do not care if we do or do not have cameras on every street.
"That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do."
And I think that he is, for the most part, also wrong. If we were to take that view, we would be certain to do many things that they very much would not like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. I am saying that these are not the terrorists' goals. That doesn't mean I think they're a good idea.
And yes, I was taking those statements literally. When someone says "X is what the terrorists want", I assume that they mean the terrorists want X to happen. If that's NOT what is meant, please explain it to me, because I honestly don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What the terrorists want is terror. Consenting to put cameras on every street out of fear of more attacks is a sign of rampant terror. Consenting to single out a specific religion out of fear of more attacks is a sign of rampant terror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is beside the point. What they want is to disrupt our way of life, and our own politicians are helping them do just that. The United States has changed significantly since 9/11, but it's mostly the fault of our own politicians who see terrorist attacks as an opportunity to do the kinds of things they couldn't get away with before. There must be a part of them that's actually happy the attacks took place, though I doubt they are willing to admit it (even to themselves).
We're worried about foreign enemies, but we've forgotten about the ones at home who strip us, their own people, of our hard-won constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not chart terrorist attacks over the last decade or two, and note the religion of the terrorists and see what you come up with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is amazing to me the stupidity of some people believing that Muslim = terrorist. Have there never been Christian terrorists? Or Jewish? Or atheist?
Not all terrorists are Muslim, people. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists. Just a small minority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They just get to not exist.
Not really all that exciting, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A drone attack is no more or less a terrorist attack than one from a manned aircraft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror."
...aaaand, I'm pretty sure you already knew that, but I like the quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you mean the IRA and the Unionists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a NYC'r...
I don't know what's worse. The fact that he's mayor, or the fact he was elected THREE EFFING TIMES (and destroying term limits in NYC in the process, because he's special.)
If this man ever runs for president (always the rumor...), do not walk, RUN and vote for whoever runs against him. Do not make the mistake the morons in my city have made.
Otherwise the terrorists will truly have won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As a NYC'r...
No, sir.
This will not do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Polls Show Growing Resolve to Live With Terror Threat
A timely Nate Silver piece, illustrating that "an increasing share of the public is skeptical about sacrificing personal freedoms for security."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Polls Show Growing Resolve to Live With Terror Threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Polls Show Growing Resolve to Live With Terror Threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Polls Show Growing Resolve to Live With Terror Threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However Bloomberg should not worry. The Constitution is barely ever respected by the Government when it feels the urge to fight terrorism. There's no need to change it. Just leave it there as a memento of these better, calmer days where imaginary threats didn't haunt people eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Pre-Police are not here yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Pre-Police are not here yet
We're not a democracy; we're a Constitutional republic.
That said, great post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet he would say, "Fuck no, asshole, are you crazy?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little proportionality, please
Yes, really.
See: http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/02/24/america-is-a-safe-place/ and http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-the ir-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/
So when a coward, a weakling, a terrorist-supporting halfwit like Bloomberg mouths this stuff, not only is he failing to uphold the Constitution (as he swore to), but he's revealing that he absolutely no grasp of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little proportionality, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little proportionality, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.B.I.T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiocracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent work! Please continue with your plans to make your country safer. We hope to see public executions of terrorist suspects by 2020!
Love,
The actual terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes they are elected to office and use fear mongering to amass more power that they will gleefully misuse against the citizens they are sworn to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...but we're the terrorists?
As the terrorists, it seems that we also want to obliterate our freedoms. We have men in suits in Boston, New York, and Washington, all too happy to increase surveillance, break our rules, use force whenever convenient, and then say it's in the name of protecting those rules (which we just broke).
How can this go on? What happened? How can these people listen to this garbage? It is as if someone can come up to them and tell them, 'The sky is orange,' when it is blue, and they'll believe it!
Sadly, it is too late. We have already succeeded in destroying our freedoms. We already live in a dystopia. This event is just another absurdity in a long nonsensical chain. The next steps will probably be something out of science fiction, with death robot wardens for the poor and happy-land prisons for the rich. Oh yes, being rich might be a burden too. Just wait until officer clownface comes up to you and says, *HAPPINESS IS MANDATORY. UNHAPPINESS WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN...*pew pew*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone needs to tell Bloomberg that you cannot re-write the constitution and that interpretation of the constitution is something that is left up to the courts, not to elected politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another failing panic argument
Absolute freedom is like any other absolute, that is to say absolutely unworkable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another failing panic argument
Freedom is a great power, so it also comes with great power, the problem is the "people" have abrogated their responsibility.
Power hates a Vaccum when the "people" gave up the power of self responsibility, government took it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another failing panic argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another failing panic argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight Terrorism
Stop being afraid.
Stop electing people who brandish fear like a weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The very fact that we have a malleable Constitution has led us to the women's suffrage movement, the end of slavery, and hopefully LBGT marriage equality. It's the very heart of the US that the supreme court can interpret the laws to the current events and override state and national laws to better society as a whole.
Now we are simply talking about Mayor Bloomberg, and his ideas are well, worth about as much as a pile of dog crap especially when talking about constitutionality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if that religion tells it believers that it's okay to kill the non-believers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am The Great Cornholio, and my bunghole has spoken!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we allow our Constitution to be dismantled, tell me, just what did our soldiers die for anyway? Wasn't the point of their sacrifice to PROTECT our rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No.
The politicians told you that... and you believed them. But they were politicians, and you didn't think things through for yourself, you just swallowed their political lies.
Bloomberg has been running the stop-and-frisk program. You think he gives one damn about people's rights? If you do, then —sorry to be blunt— —no, really, sorry, but all the same— you are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dude, you really are an idiot.
The people have capitulated. Look what happened in Watertown last week —which is not NYC, but still a good example. Paramilitary forces occupied a twenty-block area, patrolling with armored vehicles, pointing guns at all the inhabitants. Those paramilitary forces ordered the residents out of their homes on pain of immediate, summary execution. The paramilitary seized those homes, and searched those homes, “with force and arms”, all without the least shred of probable cause to suspect the fugitive was inside.
The chief evil to which the fourth amendment was directed was the invasion of people's homes. It's unreasonable to seize and search someone's house when there's no good reason to believe the fugitive is inside any particular home.
You can't justify it by saying that the fugitive was somewhere in the neighborhood: A general warrant is void on its face. Particularity is demanded by the fourth amendment.
What happened? With guns stuck in their faces, the people capitulated.
And it wasn't just the inhabitants of those homes who capitulated. Those paramilitary forces were, for the most part, composed of police officers: People whose job it is is to know that you can't search someone's house without probable cause. People who swore an oath to uphold the constitution. There was not one conscientious objector among the police. Those people tossed their oaths out the window without a second's hesitation.
The people —residents and police alike— have capitulated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Watertown capitulated more to their own paranoid fantasies than to anything else. Remember, it wasn't just the residents who capitulated. The paramilitary swat teams also capitulated. They blindly obeyed orders despite their sworn duty —more so than the inhabitants— the residents had a simple choice, obey or be shot. But no one was going to shoot a police officer for refusing to carry out an unlawful execution, or for refusing to seize and search a home without probable cause.
I hear people say, well, the fugitive could have been inside a home, could have taken hostages. But there was not one shred of evidence to actually support any of those paranoid nightmares. When you're caught in the grip of a paranoid nightmare, you have to reach out for solid support, not lose your head. The standard of probable cause to search someone's home should have been one such solid support—but the police lost it. They capitulated to their own paranoia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a public official looses sight of his given democratic oaths, admittedly easy to grasp but hard articulate, its time to remove them from office. They just are not doing their job. Or worse. Destroying the institution of Democracy.
And what of the poor citizens of New York cowering in their homes afraid to even walk on the streets if only because of news media parroting the mostly baseless fears of bureaucracy. Since its still much more likely to be killed randomly by a police officers (let alone a US anti-drug-policy black market supported gangland) stray bullet than by a terrorist bomb such claims of are way off base. Statistically speaking its more logical to fear government than terrorists.
Mayor Bloomberg, a politician, is afraid to walk the streets and translating this fear into law and policy. His policy has been somewhat to sweep unsightly reality under the city carpet so its not too surprising he cant see it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/17560722411/next-nanny-state-bloomberg-tries-to-ma ke-you-not-think-about-cigarettes.shtml#c397
As anyone who has tried to use the head in the sand approach they can tell yo that your butt is over exposed and the effort will do them no good.
At the base level. Life is scary ALL OF THE TIME! What we need are leaders that help us understand that we have to carry on in a democratic way despite all of the FUD and real safety concerns of just living a normal life. For Mayor Bloomberg to spout FUD and echo his own personal safety fears is just downright irresponsible.
If he cared one whit for the citizens of NYC he would stop being a constitutional scaredy cat and start to live again. Good leaders stand strong against the sea of uncertainty. Like the permanence of rock enduring the hurricane of doubt born of governments current mistaken sense of (over the top) responsibility. It seems that Mayor Bloomberg's constitutional resolve is like an small ice-cube floating down the Mississippi river in summer.
It gets worse for such who talk of tossing the constitution. It leads down the road of dictatorial rule of bureaucracy based law benefiting no one. Even the leaders of such nations are hated by all in reality and by none in public. If only because any who complained are jailed, enslaved or just plain dead. (Do some homework on this one its historical fact.)
Not living in NYC this opinion would is lacking but its offered anyway. If NYC voters want to be impressive they might do so by keeping the constitution and forgetting the current mayor. Since this guy seems constitutionally dangerous one might consider impeachment as an option. (just making a suggestion)
reactionary,
History might record that in A.D. 2013 the NYC residents allowed the Constitution to be Bloomberged out of existence.
The above essay is basic and objective concerning the constitutional concerns. Have not mentioned that Bloomberg is a billionaire with many profit conflicts possible. Good questions might be how would anyone profit by authoritarian rule? Do any of his directly owned or subsidiaries (or possibly shell companies) benefit from such? Do any of his family members or friends benefit? Such accusations would require evidence.
AC remark on a quote from Tim Cushing; “ 'we know there are people who want to "take away our freedoms.” '
but if we can erode our privacy and add more surveillance more quickly, if we are lucky, we can beat them to it!”
I could have saved myself a 700 word essay if I could have been so observant and witty.
The AC comment about the greater danger from our own furniture was right to the point.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/21100822804/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-thinks-boston-bom bing-renders-constitution-obsolete.shtml#c502 Its even likely that jaywalking is more dangerous than terrorism. Driving a car? Hahaha!
The furniture killing your family by poisonous smoke produced by cotton (foam padding is another matter) burning is (sic) hilarious in that hemp (and other) fiber(s) burning is non toxic (and non hallucinogenic) but not supported by special interest groups like the extremely powerful cotton industry. Hemp is a stronger more durable fiber and makes clothes last much longer. Its preferred for rope used in the maritime industry for hundreds of years. We just love special interest groups!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how only the Jews are creating "Gun Control" laws
Another funny thing. Jews are the creators of the open doors immigration laws that allow Muslim terrorists to invade our nation and low-IQ Mexicans to invade the USA to steal American jobs. Eliminate the Mexican invaders from the USA and we'd have millions of jobs available for hard-working Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]