Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

[Canadian_watcher]

http://truth-out.org/speakout/item/16002-glorious-martial-law

Glorious Martial Law?
Thursday, 25 April 2013 11:04
By Joe Giambrone, SpeakOut | Op-Ed

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchers?)”
–Juvenal

Are we allowed to talk about martial law, the militarization of police, and the complete shutdown of cities on command? Or will that get the glorious law enforcers to storm and kick in our own doors now? Just what are the rules in effect today? Just what sort of precedent is being set here right before our eyes?
It was your commoner citizens who located the Boston bombing suspect after finding him hiding in a boat. This was after the martial law decree had arbitrarily been lifted, and it was now ordered permissible to go out in one’s backyard again.

Is martial law the answer to sticky incidents with fleeing suspects? Can this now apply to any suspects or any manhunt in the United States, anywhere, for any reason?

One might argue that clearing the streets under military decree is very useful for a particular purpose when pursuing a suspect: allowing a “free fire zone” of automatic .40 caliber hollow point gunfire, the known preference of the new “Homeland Security” apparatus. So what precedents are we setting now, in terms of rewriting the entire law enforcement paradigm, arguably a much more serious concern than a single 19 year old bleeding suspect. Yeah. What the fuck actually happened last week in Boston?

“Governor Deval Patrick took an unprecedented security step, asking people in Boston, Watertown, and several other nearby communities — totaling a million people — to “shelter in place” — stay at home behind locked doors and open up only to police officers with proper identification.”
–Boston Globe

“Asking?” Martial law is just a friendly request, and the Globe dutifully disseminates. CBS News counts “thousands of heavily armed law enforcement officers and scores of military-style tactical vehicles,” but is quick to have an expert standing by to justify it as “perfect sense.” Just perfect. All that for one bleeding, injured 19 year old.
...

The two brothers Tsarnaev have been established by the FBI as the only perpetrators, the only suspects, the only reason for the Boston bombings to have occurred. An FBI press conference went so far as to caution the entire media and public against looking elsewhere:
“For clarity these images should be the only ones, I emphasize the only ones, that the public should view to assist us. Other photos should not be deemed credible and they unnecessarily divert the public’s attention in the wrong direction and create undo work for vital law enforcement resources.”
-Special Agent Rick DesLauriers, the head of the FBI’s Boston office

I find it hard to interpret this diktat as anything other than a direct order to narrow one’s thinking and evidentiary standards. The entire nation has been cautioned that all other evidence is to be deemed by the civilized world as not “credible.” As George W. Bush said a decade prior, at the United Nations: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories…”

One might expect such direct state orders inside Soviet Russia, but in our allegedly free society with its proudly proclaimed “free press” this is disturbing. The FBI has just discredited the entire concept of investigative journalism and assumed the role of sole authority on all information related to this case. The media is cautioned not to entertain any additional facts, no matter how they may appear to bear on the case. Nothing that doesn’t come directly from the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to be considered “credible” by anyone. Period.

So, is this the end of the so-called “free society?” Land of the free, home of the brave? Or is our new paradigm the land of the surveilled and controlled, home of the cowering, with martial law and propaganda for all? And with so many thousands upon thousands of law enforcers available at the touch of a button, how about sending, say, one of them to investigate at least 14 counts of manslaughter and massive criminal negligence at that Texas fertilizer plant explosion? Or is that not in the script?
...

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

[Canadian_watcher]

http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo/2013/04/19/the-boston-lockdown-is-this-really-necessary/

The Boston Lockdown–Is This REALLY Necessary?
By: Ohio Barbarian Friday April 19, 2013 2:38 pm

If you’ve listened to or watched the news at all in the last couple of days, then you know that most of the entire Boston metropolitan area is in “lockdown.” All public transportation is shut down, hockey and baseball games canceled, most businesses closed, and most residents staying inside their homes while police in full riot gear, armed with assault rifles, comb the place house to house, building to building, car to car(I saw one shot of cops opening the trunk of a parked car on a quiet suburban street.) Residents also reported the Army moving around, though I don’t know if that’s really true.

So how many Bostonians are going for days without pay because they can’t go to work? How many small businesses that operate on a very thin margin are getting hit hard in the old bank account? How many street vendors are losing hundreds of dollars a day? None of these questions are being asked by the corporate media as they gush about the thorough response of the authorities.

And it’s all for exactly what? A 19 year old kid, that’s what. One post-adolescent who is probably armed with at least a handgun, and maybe with a few explosives, is the reason that one of America’s, and I’m sure Bostonians would say the world’s, greatest cities has been paralyzed. Just how much more damage could this kid cause? Sure, he might kill a couple more people, might, but does that possibility really justify shutting down Boston for who knows how long?

Did they shut down Chicago when searching for Hannibal Lecter, who killed more people than these two Chechen brothers? Did they shut down Atlanta after the bombing in the Olympic Games? Did the Germans shut down Munich in 1972? Did they shut down Los Angeles a few months back when a fired cop with military training was gunning down other cops? Did they shut down Aurora, much less the entire Denver metro area after the shooting in the theater? For that matter, did they completely shut down all of New York City and Washington DC after 9/11?

The answer to all of those questions is NO, they did not. So what’s different now? It’s almost like they, whoever “they” are, are seeing just how far and how fast they can impose a police state on a great and diverse city. How long will Bostonians put up with this?

How long will Americans in general put up with this type of reaction from the authorities? Or do you think they should? Do you think this is justified? Sorry, but I don’t. Feedback is welcome.

[stickdog99]

I agree with all of this stuff.

Of course, I'm far away from the scene. And I get that the fact that I am far away matters. But the images coming from Boston greatly disturbed me.

It was just a scary level of militarization, and I really don't give a fuck if they were extremely well-behaved for an occupying force.

[justdrew]

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis.

Martial law is usually imposed on a temporary basis when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.

In most of the cases, military forces are deployed to subdue the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order.[1] Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. In full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.[1]

Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (such as Thailand in 2006); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a state of emergency.

Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.

Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).

Thankfully, we didn't have anything close to Martial Law in Watertown.

While we see limited exceptions to habeas corpus, lots of people are trying to fix that, and it wouldn't have happened at all if not for Murdock and his pet Republicans.

I had forgotten about the October Crisis. (well, I'd only barely ever heard of the thing)

[RocketMan]

I find it hard to interpret this diktat as anything other than a direct order to narrow one’s thinking and evidentiary standards. The entire nation has been cautioned that all other evidence is to be deemed by the civilized world as not “credible.” As George W. Bush said a decade prior, at the United Nations: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories…”

I find this mention strangely reassuring. Truthout is fighting the good fight, but as dissident outlets go, it treads pretty carefully around 9/11. Good to know people took notice when he said this.

[Byrne]

Pepe Escobar did today
in his powerful essay 'A post-history strip tease'

...

We have the Muslim-only concentration camp - as in Guantanamo. We have the simulacrum of a concentration camp - as in Palestine, which is virtually walled and under 24/7 surveillance, and where "the law" is dictated by an occupying power. And we have what happened - as a dry run - last week in Boston; the euphemistic "lockdown", which is a suspension of the law to the benefit of martial law; no freedom of movement, no cell phone network, and you if you go the corner shop to buy a soft drink you may be shot. A whole city in the industrialized North turned into a high-tech concentration camp.
...

it's worth reading the whole piece

on edit some more snippets....

The war on terror, seductively normalized by the Obama administration, was and remains a global state of exception, even though trappings come and go; the Patriot Act; shadowy executive orders; torture - a recent US bipartisan panel accused all top officials of the George W Bush administration of torture; extraordinary rendition, with which secular then allies of the West such as Libya and Syria collaborated, not to mention Eastern European nations and the usual Arab puppets, Egypt under Mubarak included; and the sprawling apparatus of homeland security.

As for a real concentration camp, once again we don't need to look further than Guantanamo - which, contrary to Obama's campaign promise, will remain open indefinitely, as well as some among the vast number of Bush-era CIA "secret" prisons.

In all these cases whatever happens to social life - suspension, dissolution, balkanization, implosion, a state of emergency - what happens to normal citizens is that citizenship (bios) evaporates. But ruling elites - political, economic, financial - don't care about citizenship. They're only interested in passive consumers.

It goes without saying that post-history buries the Enlightenment - as favoring the emergence of all sorts of fundamentalisms. So it had also to bury international law; from bypassing the UN to launch a war on Iraq in 2003 to using a UN resolution to launch a war on Libya in 2011. And now Britain and France are taking no prisoners trying to bypass the UN or even NATO itself and weaponize the "rebels" in Syria.

So we have a New Medievalism that cannot but fit wealthy neo-theocracy - as in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; because they are Western allies, or puppets, internally they may remain medieval. Superimposed, we have the politics of fear - which essentially rules Fortress America and Fortress Europe; fear of The Other, which can be occasionally Asian but most of the time Islamic.

[Canadian_watcher]

That was a poetic and on point read, Byrne, thanks for that.

I wish people with pull would listen, but weapons and spy shit are just too cool and there's not enough time to buy and play with them if they're busy reading intellectual bull. Plus, the paranoia, let's not forget the paranoia.

Boston Police Ed Davis Wants Drones For Next Marathon

Next year's Boston Marathon could be watched over by drones.

The city's police commissioner, Ed Davis, told the Boston Herald that using the aerial surveillance technology during next year's race is "a great idea."

"I don’t know that would be the first place I’d invest money, but certainly to cover an event like this, and have an eye in the sky that would be much cheaper to run than a helicopter is a really good idea," Davis said.

Davis' interest in drones comes after the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 on April 15.

Davis also told WBZ NewsRadio that, "there are certainly serious privacy concerns that we have to consider before we do something like that.”

The Herald praised the idea in an editorial on Friday, arguing that "there may be no more useful tool" to help law enforcement prevent another attack:

.

Surveillance drones can be a useful tool for law enforcement, and like it or not they’re coming to a city near you. It is important that their use be restrained, with proper oversight to prevent abuse. But in an emergency situation, there may be no more useful tool.
Privacy advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union have repeatedly sounded the alarm over the growing use of domestic drones. The group argues that, because the technology is relatively inexpensive, drones are likely to be used more and more frequently across the country.

The ACLU also warns that, unlike police helicopters, drones pose unique and potentially dangerous privacy concerns if they aren't tightly regulated.

Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald has expressed similar concerns:

The fact is that drones vest vast new powers that police helicopters and existing weapons do not vest: and that’s true not just for weaponization but for surveillance. Drones enable a Surveillance State unlike anything we’ve seen. Because small drones are so much cheaper than police helicopters, many more of them can be deployed at once, ensuring far greater surveillance over a much larger area. Their small size and stealth capability means they can hover without any detection, and they can remain in the air for far longer than police helicopters.

[FourthBase]

That was a poetic and on point read, Byrne, thanks for that.

I wish people with pull would listen, but weapons and spy shit are just too cool and there's not enough time to buy and play with them if they're busy reading intellectual bull. Plus, the paranoia, let's not forget the paranoia.

Boston Police Ed Davis Wants Drones For Next Marathon

Next year's Boston Marathon could be watched over by drones.

The city's police commissioner, Ed Davis, told the Boston Herald that using the aerial surveillance technology during next year's race is "a great idea."

"I don’t know that would be the first place I’d invest money, but certainly to cover an event like this, and have an eye in the sky that would be much cheaper to run than a helicopter is a really good idea," Davis said.

Davis' interest in drones comes after the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 on April 15.

Davis also told WBZ NewsRadio that, "there are certainly serious privacy concerns that we have to consider before we do something like that.”

The Herald praised the idea in an editorial on Friday, arguing that "there may be no more useful tool" to help law enforcement prevent another attack:

.

Surveillance drones can be a useful tool for law enforcement, and like it or not they’re coming to a city near you. It is important that their use be restrained, with proper oversight to prevent abuse. But in an emergency situation, there may be no more useful tool.
Privacy advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union have repeatedly sounded the alarm over the growing use of domestic drones. The group argues that, because the technology is relatively inexpensive, drones are likely to be used more and more frequently across the country.

The ACLU also warns that, unlike police helicopters, drones pose unique and potentially dangerous privacy concerns if they aren't tightly regulated.

Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald has expressed similar concerns:

The fact is that drones vest vast new powers that police helicopters and existing weapons do not vest: and that’s true not just for weaponization but for surveillance. Drones enable a Surveillance State unlike anything we’ve seen. Because small drones are so much cheaper than police helicopters, many more of them can be deployed at once, ensuring far greater surveillance over a much larger area. Their small size and stealth capability means they can hover without any detection, and they can remain in the air for far longer than police helicopters.

Do not like. For all the obvious reasons.

But: Satellites. They already exist like a net floating in near space shrouding the earth. Satellites can see individual pimples on your foreheads, and can probably estimate by thermal imaging when they're going to pop. What's new? What's worse? As long as the drones are unarmed: Who cares? Satellites, closed circuit cameras covering almost every foot of urban space, helicopters, unwarranted taps on your email and phone...who cares if the government adds yet another way to peer at us like peeping toms? Flash them. "Hi, government! Just buying milk and cigarettes, minding my business. Unlike you, you fucking perverts, lol! Here, watch me pick my nose and flick a snot at the sky in your general direction." It's been this way for years. As long as I've been conscious, probably. It's only "worse" in that the all-seeing eye has metastasized, but it's still just an eyeball, an eyeball which can see everything they do, too, hopefully. An eyeball vulnerable to a speck of dust, the fine mist of lemon zest, or sheer aridity. Not impressed.

[Canadian_watcher]

I know women who think that because they've taken martial arts they are safe walking home at night.

[FourthBase]

I know women who think that because they've taken martial arts they are safe walking home at night.

Uhhh...depending on which martial art and the level of mastery, they very well might be.
But, anyway, what was your point? I don't get it.

[divideandconquer]

The big difference between then and now is that the huge and hungry big brother/martial law monstrosity that used to lurk beneath the surface, is emerging into the light of day...the many headed hydra is starting to reveal its abhorrent nature... The bottom line is that they don't need us--the middle class-- anymore so the predator class can start to shed its veneer of civility. Unfortunately, most Americans will remain hypnotized by the mainstream media's Orwellian brainwashing machine.

[FourthBase]

The big difference between then and now is that the huge and hungry big brother/martial law monstrosity that used to lurk beneath the surface, is emerging into the light of day...the many headed hydra is starting to reveal its abhorrent nature... The bottom line is that they don't need us--the middle class-- anymore so the predator class can start to shed its veneer of civility. Unfortunately, most Americans will remain hypnotized by the mainstream media's Orwellian brainwashing machine.

We could be the hydra, instead? But, hey, go ahead, concede prematurely.
Why wait for any other shoe to drop, or try to snatch it before it does?
Better to just put your own foot down and declare ourselves doomed...
That way, we will have beaten them to the punch, by punching ourselves.
There's no hope, no, you already know that [insert despair], so, why bother.
Smart. Productive. Fearless. Responsible. Objective. Revolutionary. True.

"Ugh! Stop spoiling our self-pity party! Let us give up on the future in peace!" No.

[Canadian_watcher]

I know women who think that because they've taken martial arts they are safe walking home at night.

Uhhh...depending on which martial art and the level of mastery, they very well might be.
But, anyway, what was your point? I don't get it.

without some form of luck (ie the guy attacks her at the top of a set of stairs and she manages to push him down) I cannot imagine this being the case. I can perhaps forgive your ignorance on this because I`ll guess that you've never fought a woman before, let alone fought one while you were determined, engraged and filled with destructive adrenaline fueled urges.

My point is that your post up there was pretty much a blustery chest thump "Òh yeah cops, come and get me!" It only works that way under certain circumstances. Honestly, you need to have a run in with the cops where you've done nothing to deserve their treatment. it'll change your mind on ALL of this, I guarantee it.

[FourthBase]

I know women who think that because they've taken martial arts they are safe walking home at night.

Uhhh...depending on which martial art and the level of mastery, they very well might be.
But, anyway, what was your point? I don't get it.

without some form of luck (ie the guy attacks her at the top of a set of stairs and she manages to push him down) I cannot imagine this being the case. I can perhaps forgive your ignorance on this because I`ll guess that you've never fought a woman before, let alone fought one while you were determined, engraged and filled with destructive adrenaline fueled urges.

My point is that your post up there was pretty much a blustery chest thump "Òh yeah cops, come and get me!" It only works that way under certain circumstances. Honestly, you need to have a run in with the cops where you've done nothing to deserve their treatment. it'll change your mind on ALL of this, I guarantee it.

I think you are severely underestimating what mastery of certain martial arts can do for a woman.

I've had cops take me away in conjunction with whitecoats, and I did not deserve it. I went peacefully. I chatted them up. I demonstrated my sanity. I resented the whole situation no less. What am I supposed to do? Seek revenge? This is it, then. Seeking and spreading taboo truths. So, yeah: "Come and get me, cops." I'm guilty of nothing. Anything unjust done to me will backfire on them culturally, legally. They would have to kidnap me secretly and send me to a black prison in Dubai or whatever, create some cover where I spontaneously decided to walk the earth, occasionally sending tweets on my adventures. Because anything else -- murder or disappearance or harassment or battery or legal persecution -- would simply expose their agenda. If you're the guy who every day calls the local police chief a corrupt monster, and after a while that local police chief gets sick of it and has you arrested, beaten, tortured, jailed, disappeared, and/or killed, then the local police chief has merely confirmed the accusations you were making against him that he wanted to dispel in the first place. It's a no-win position for them, in almost every iteration, as long as the object of persecution realizes it, and perseveres long enough to turn the tables. Turning the legal table, suing the bastards, which is still quite possible, because, believe it or not, this is still a nation of laws, and if it weren't then why would the creeps ever bother trying to rig things? Turning the journalistic table, discovering and revealing as publicly as possible every suspicious and unsavory thing about your persecutors, which is a big part of what this board does. Turning the cultural table, in the sense of becoming a pressure-building cause celebre. (Although one wonders how much support a non-violent hero would get from the left...would non-violence be sexy enough, macho enough to the contemporary left? It had better fucking be.) Point is, yes, the cops have license to traumatize us. Yes, the system is rigged to prevent such cops from being held accountable. But bad cops like that and the bad system in general are still vulnerable, vulnerable to the law if you can make a flawless case, vulnerable to the truth if you can get people to hear it and it's not spoiled by any other conscious or unconscious biases, vulnerable to The People if enough of them complain loudly enough and assemble in large enough groups, merely assemble, that's it, just show up, no impotent discharge of violent impulses, no indulgence of narcissism, just showing up, and asking "Why? Okay, why? Okay...why? Okay. But. WHY?" This applies to me, you, everyone here, everyone at OWS, everyone at MoveOn, everyone in the marginalized authentic corner of The Tea Party, everyone who fellates Ron Paul, everyone in the ghetto, everyone in the trailer parks, everyone who works, everyone who can't, everyone, everyone, everyone. No one should ever have to walk alone. No one should ever have to endure abuse and oppression and then fear, "What if no one sticks up for me? What if no one even listens? What if this outrage is never exposed? What if these bastards are never penalized and stripped of their authority? What if it's just...hopeless?" No. That should never have to be feared. But, well, it kind of sucks if the good people who would otherwise have your back are already gloomily resigned to an ultimate worst case scenario and so no longer can muster the faintest vapor of hope as fuel for the courage to do something clever or at least say something bold or even just think of a way to defy victimhood. Fuck being glum and passive and hopeless. Stand up to bullies in a way that undoes bullying itself. Fear not.

[hiddenite]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/lawyer-jailed-students-shocked-by-boston-bombing-allegations-against-classmate-knew-nothing/2013/04/26/176ccaf6-aedc-11e2-b59e-adb43da03a8a_story.html
Lawyer: Jailed students shocked by Boston bombing allegations against classmate, knew nothing



"They are not suspects but are being held for violating their student visas by not regularly attending classes, Stahl said. They are being detained at a county jail in Boston."


The 2 students pictured with DT in the article who were arrested now held , no mention of the female who, on first arrest, was taken in a car with diplomatic number plates.