Islamist Terrorism in the West

[vicsinad]

Gocka, thanks, I think that's pretty much what I'm saying. The legal implications and consequences mostly concern me.. along with the potential precedence it could set.

Vic and Gocka,

Neither of you have yet proposed an alternative course of action that could have resulted in the swift apprehension of the terror suspects.
I give huge credit to the vigilance of the American people and their role in identifying the attackers. I give great credit to the ability of the Americans to throw vast resources at this case and have it essentially closed in a very short time.

I'm not a constitutional law expert, so I'm not going to argue the meaning of words in your constitution or continue this bullshit about how the liberties of you two peanuts were taken away on that day.

Next time your city is terrorized and there's lunatics planting IED's in your backyard and the cops are doing their door knocks and the streets are off limits for your own safety, you go for it... Don't let the cops in and go roam the streets freely and in defiance.

First, you said I haven't stated what an appropriate response would be. Then I stated any response that didn't include warrant-less searches and pat-downs without the necessary level of suspicion would be fine. Now you're saying I haven't proposed an alternative course of action...yet, I'm still saying any alternative action that doesn't encroach on constitutional liberties and rights. What are you missing?

You may not be a constitutional law expert. But I do have two different law degrees; and while I don't think that is any support or justification for my argument, it should at least demonstrate that my concerns are mainly legal (and policy) in nature and not conspiracy-based. I am legitimately concerned about the precedent this sets; and I've read and seen enough about the American legal atmosphere to know that certain legal and political institutions are pushing some boundaries that Americans have struggled to set for many decades.

(And as a side note, I never said my liberties were taken away.)

As far as not letting the cops in and walking the streets in defiance, that's beside the point because I never gave my opinion on what I would do in that situation. I'm stating the limits that the Constitution sets on government and government agencies to do such things. The test is usually exigent circumstances for when an officer can skip the Fourth Amendment and search a house:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence.

What I'm saying is this: First, there wasn't a threat of imminent danger, legally defined. Imminent means immediate in the sense that there's a gun pointed at somebody. That clearly did not exist here. Second, imminent escape did not exist here, as in how can there be the threat of an imminent escape from a particular house when the officers don't even know the particular house the suspect could be in? Doesn't apply here.

And even if the above, for argument sake, one can argue that imminent danger and imminent escape did exist, then what does that say about the other one million fugitives that are in America? That's how many warrants are out there...most aren't dangerous criminals, but thousands are dangerous. So why not employ the same tactics and the same ignorance of the Constitution? The reason must be, in part, political.

[vicsinad]

It was, but I still think it's true. Or at least a bit more tip toeing would have went on.



I think the mass of police and the ordered shutdown of the city made the effort slower. In the end it was AFTER the order to stay indoors was lifted that the suspect was identified by a common citizen and reported to the authorities.

There is already a course of action specified in our laws. The relevant jurisdictions are outlined as are protocols for operation. There is no need for "special" anything. It's not like an entire foreign army was deployed on our shores.

The key to their apprehension was the viral nature of today's world. As soon as the pictures went public that was the end, regular people had identified who they were just based on who went to school with them and people that knew them. Their hours were numbered after that. There was no need for a mass shutdown and all the door to door searches.



You've taken quite some liberty right there in implying that either one of us had complained that our personal liberties were violated. This isn't about me or him, this is about the law, and the precedence. The reason that we have laws and the constitution is to prevent certain things from happening.

You cannot have laws in place if you plan on saying well in this case they don't count and in that case they do. As soon as you find a reason to violate a given law then anyone in the future can give a similar reason to also violate that law and by the time you're finished the law may become irrelevant because of so many "special" circumstances.



Here you are using hyperbole and sensationalism to try and drive home a point, but those are exactly the types of actions that are used to violate people's rights. You grab at people's emotions to try and justify something that otherwise would be wrong.

In my opinion the type of mentality you are displaying is typical of Macedonians. The mentality that that laws are meant to be flexible, that they don't always apply to everyone and they certainly don't apply to me. That is why Macedonia is in the sad state that it is. Because laws are not respected nor enforced and that is why corruption and soft crime plague the country.

We have a constitution and laws for a reason. A law is useless if there are going to be exceptions. Would you agree to this? Or do you believe that laws are open to interpretation?

Where is the line?

Who is a terrorist and who is not?

Who needs to be read his Miranda rights and who doesn't?

Who can be searched without a warrant and who can't?

When can the police enter my home and when cant they?

When can I choose to not open my door and when can't I?

When is the constitution valid and when is it suspended?

None of these questions are answered in our constitution, and that is because it is laid out in a manner so that these questions should never be asked, it specifies that the in order to answer any of those questions you must go through legal proceedings and through the relevant channels to prove that you have a legitimate reason for asking any of those questions.

Or do all these questions lay solely with whoever is calling the shots at the moment?

The end cannot be used to justify the means when the scope of what is at stake is so large.

Great post.

[Phoenix]

Vic & Gocka,

You guys can argue all day long about liberty and the philosophies behind it but at the end of the day you can't escape a fundamental requirement and that's the responsibility of the individual in their own actions.

I wonder if you two were in Watertown and the police were requesting a search of your property as part of the manhunt and you both protested and refused access to your properties, if you hindered the police operation by being out on the streets when asked to stay indoors...I wonder if that's a responsible action for expressing ones 'liberty'.

I think you still have a responsibility to yourself and to the wider community that you live in.

[Vangelovski]

I wasn't going to comment on this post, but seeing as my name was brought up I decided I will.

Firstly, I just want to put a myth to rest. If one was to honestly look over the threads on this forum from when I first started to post, they would see that I am one of the few members that is challenged more often and more spitefully than the vast majority. Regardless of perception and what the odd person that's received a little beating on here thinks, there is very little tolerance for my views - in actual fact, the dislike for them (and me personally) is enormous. Specifically, Bill77 and Phoenix are never shy away from challenging me and I don't expect them to. I want the members on here to test my ideas, not blow sunshine up by arse.

Secondly, and as much as it pains me to say, I largely agree with the points made by Victor on this matter (too bad he does not agree with these very principles when it comes to the rights of Macedonians).

I can't remember if it was Victor or Gocka who touched on it, but Benjamin Franklin's statement below is quite relevant:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I think ultimately, the question is how much liberty are you willing to give up for safety that nobody, including no government or state institution, can guarantee?

I think the Americans, as a nation, have tried to answer that question through their constitution and laws. Whether or not they have found the right balance is an issue for debate. But as things stand, they have a clear set of rules for what can and cannot be done.

There seem to be two simultaneous questions in this thread:

1) Was this action a violation of constitutional and natural rights; and

2) Did this action actually prevent further violence.

In this particular instance, I think that the US Government has violated the constitution and the natural rights of individuals. Whether this course of action prevented more violence is debatable.

[Bill77]

News coming through the two had plans for further attacks.

Phoenix, could you imagine the outcome if the authorities had to wait for warrants?

[Gocka]

I wasn't going to comment on this post, but seeing as my name was brought up I decided I will.

I thought it would persuade you :P I knew you were avoiding the topic, I must ask why? I actually really wanted to know your opinion on the matter given your background and education.

Also if you think I was wrong in my comments then apologies to Phoenix and Bill, regardless they were probably uncalled for, it's just that there prejudgments were strong given who the poster was. Also my apologies for dragging you in if you did not want to be a part of this discussion, it was a bit selfish, but I knew what you would most likely say so I thought I'd use you to sway the balance. I don't think you really wanted to be on this side :P and yes it is a shame when people can't apply the same level of logic to all situations.

I can't remember if it was Victor or Gocka who touched on it, but Benjamin Franklin's statement below is quite relevant:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I think ultimately, the question is how much liberty are you willing to give up for safety that nobody, including no government or state institution, can guarantee?
I think the Americans, as a nation, have tried to answer that question through their constitution and laws. Whether or not they have found the right balance is an issue for debate. But as things stand, they have a clear set of rules for what can and cannot be done.

It was Victor, and spot on for the rest. I don't think the right balance is there but it is close and that is besides the point like you say.

There seem to be two simultaneous questions in this thread:

1) Was this action a violation of constitutional and natural rights; and

2) Did this action actually prevent further violence.

In this particular instance, I think that the US Government has violated the constitution and the natural rights of individuals. Whether this course of action prevented more violence is debatable.

People seem to only think in terms of immediate circumstances and immediate ramifications, sometimes the long term ramifications can be much worse.

[Vangelovski]

I thought it would persuade you :P I knew you were avoiding the topic, I must ask why?

I just couldn't be bothered at the moment.

As for 'swaying the balance', I don't think my comments will do anything of the sort.

[Gocka]

News coming through the two had plans for further attacks.

Phoenix, could you imagine the outcome if the authorities had to wait for warrants?

Of course they planned future attacks, you think a terrorist is a one off kind of gig. I'll blow something up today but that's it I'm done after that. It was a given from the start.

If they did I'm sure there would have been a large outcry for warrants to be removed from the law so that this never happens again. Just like every time there is some kind of gun violence.

Knee jerk reactions, just like what we saw in Boston.

In my opinion the government didn't mean any malice, I think they just over played their hand to try and pad their resumes and come off as big heroes.

All I know for sure is that in the last decade we have pretty much made the entire constitution irrelevant because we have made exceptions to almost everything that is in it.

[Gocka]

I just couldn't be bothered at the moment.

As for 'swaying the balance', I don't think my comments will do anything of the sort.

Didnt mean it that way. it was 2 v 2 you made it 3 v 2 thats all, it was a joke really.

[vicsinad]

I'm in agreement with what Vangelovski said on this point. And it doesn't pain me to say it, Tom.

Safety is certainly necessary in order to enjoy liberty. But how much liberty should be give up for safety, and should that be an individual's decision or the government's decision?

Vic & Gocka,

You guys can argue all day long about liberty and the philosophies behind it but at the end of the day you can't escape a fundamental requirement and that's the responsibility of the individual in their own actions.

I wonder if you two were in Watertown and the police were requesting a search of your property as part of the manhunt and you both protested and refused access to your properties, if you hindered the police operation by being out on the streets when asked to stay indoors...I wonder if that's a responsible action for expressing ones 'liberty'.

I think you still have a responsibility to yourself and to the wider community that you live in.

I don't think you should confuse our arguments for maintaining liberty as one of negating responsibilities.

But I can think of some "responsible" ways to handle this. For example:

Officer: We need to search your house for the terrorist.

Me: Officer, my family and I have been home all day; if we saw the terrorist I'd be sure to let you know. So let me save you some time, and my city some resources, by saying the terrorist isn't here and you can move on. If I see him or any suspicious activity, you'll be the first to know.

Officer: But we need to do a thorough search of your house.

Me: Unless you have the layout of my house, and all my furniture set-up, I can guarantee that I've done a better search than you can ever do. After all, my kids sleep here and I don't want a dangerous person in my home. Rest assured, there is no terrorist here. If I do see him, you'll be the first to know.


Yes, as Gocka and I both pointed out, the cops shut down much of Boston, wasted many resources, and found nothing until 10 minutes after citizens were told to go outside and be vigilant. Is that criticizing the cops? No. As Gocka alluded to, the citizens were well aware that Dzhokhar was out there and nobody knew where -- as most citizens walk around unarmed, they're more likely to be nervous and on guard walking down their streets looking for any signs of suspicion. That's why, starting the evening of the bombing and all week long, citizens across the country (forget about Boston) were reporting "suspicious packages." So I have faith in my fellow citizens to uphold their responsibilities without potential boundary pushing when it comes to limits set by the Constitution.


Bill :

News coming through the two had plans for further attacks.

Phoenix, could you imagine the outcome if the authorities had to wait for warrants?

And what need was there for warrants? They killed the elder brother on public property (the street I believe), and if they're in hot pursuit then they can go into people's properties to catch them. But once they've lost the suspect, it's no longer hot pursuit. That's why the authorities were saying "he could be anywhere in Massachusetts right now." So what...search every house in Massachusetts? All in the meanwhile taking police resources from their normal duties and responsibilities.


Again, if authorities put a fraction of the effort that they put in pursuing this Dzhokhar guy into pursuing many of the murderous fugitives that are roaming America's streets, do you know how many lives will be saved? How many women will not have had lost their dignity? Why such a concern for the Boston Marathon Bomber's potential future victims, but not a passionate plea for these other victims?

[vicsinad]

In my opinion the government didn't mean any malice, I think they just over played their hand to try and pad their resumes and come off as big heroes.

All I know for sure is that in the last decade we have pretty much made the entire constitution irrelevant because we have made exceptions to almost everything that is in it.

I think so, too...the government (and definitely the police officers) were not trying to go into homes and seize people's weed. They wanted to find this criminal. And, in addition to your last remark, and remarks you've made previously, the precedent this can set for future administrations (local, state or federal) could be dangerous. Now, after every attack that could potentially be defined as a terror attack, will this be the normal response, and will they then push that boundary even further?

[Bill77]

Of course they planned future attacks, you think a terrorist is a one off kind of gig. I'll blow something up today but that's it I'm done after that. It was a given from the start.

Since you are so certain, therefor, you should agree there was imminent danger and considering further IED's were used and discovered, you would call it ( as vic put it) "Legally defined.....immediate in a sense a gun pointed at someone"

Therefor, isn't it now justifiable and reasonable what the authorities did in regards to actions taken?

[Phoenix]

I'm in agreement with what Vangelovski said on this point. And it doesn't pain me to say it, Tom.

Safety is certainly necessary in order to enjoy liberty. But how much liberty should be give up for safety, and should that be an individual's decision or the government's decision?




I don't think you should confuse our arguments for maintaining liberty as one of negating responsibilities.

But I can think of some "responsible" ways to handle this. For example:

Officer: We need to search your house for the terrorist.

Me: Officer, my family and I have been home all day; if we saw the terrorist I'd be sure to let you know. So let me save you some time, and my city some resources, by saying the terrorist isn't here and you can move on. If I see him or any suspicious activity, you'll be the first to know.

Officer: But we need to do a thorough search of your house.

Me: Unless you have the layout of my house, and all my furniture set-up, I can guarantee that I've done a better search than you can ever do. After all, my kids sleep here and I don't want a dangerous person in my home. Rest assured, there is no terrorist here. If I do see him, you'll be the first to know.


Yes, as Gocka and I both pointed out, the cops shut down much of Boston, wasted many resources, and found nothing until 10 minutes after citizens were told to go outside and be vigilant. Is that criticizing the cops? No. As Gocka alluded to, the citizens were well aware that Dzhokhar was out there and nobody knew where -- as most citizens walk around unarmed, they're more likely to be nervous and on guard walking down their streets looking for any signs of suspicion. That's why, starting the evening of the bombing and all week long, citizens across the country (forget about Boston) were reporting "suspicious packages." So I have faith in my fellow citizens to uphold their responsibilities without potential boundary pushing when it comes to limits set by the Constitution.


Bill :


And what need was there for warrants? They killed the elder brother on public property (the street I believe), and if they're in hot pursuit then they can go into people's properties to catch them. But once they've lost the suspect, it's no longer hot pursuit. That's why the authorities were saying "he could be anywhere in Massachusetts right now." So what...search every house in Massachusetts? All in the meanwhile taking police resources from their normal duties and responsibilities.


Again, if authorities put a fraction of the effort that they put in pursuing this Dzhokhar guy into pursuing many of the murderous fugitives that are roaming America's streets, do you know how many lives will be saved? How many women will not have had lost their dignity? Why such a concern for the Boston Marathon Bomber's potential future victims, but not a passionate plea for these other victims?

I haven't got the time right now to dedicate to this thread some of my stronger views but I'll get back to you and that bullshit artist and amateur manipulator, Gocka later today.
In the meantime I suggest you exit your Rachmaninov isolation chamber and suck up some of the real air outside .

[Bill77]

I haven't got the time right now to dedicate to this thread some of my stronger views but I'll get back to you and that bullshit artist and amateur manipulator, Gocka later today.
In the meantime I suggest you exit your Rachmaninov isolation chamber and suck up some of the real air outside .

In the meantime, can I play with him?
I love these make believe games.

Vic...I fixed the Officer's response.

But I can think of some "responsible" ways to handle this. For example:

Officer: We need to search your house for the terrorist.

Me: Officer, my family and I have been home all day; if we saw the terrorist I'd be sure to let you know.

Officer: A dangerous terrorist who is on the run after being named and identified would not come in with an marching band playing Dixie and introducing him self. For your family, our city and nations safety Sir, could we double check your premises.

Me: So let me save you some time, and my city some resources, by saying the terrorist isn't here and you can move on.

Officer: Sir you are waisting not saving this precious time with this conversation and putting your self, family, city and nation at risk, please we can't afford to leave any stone unturned, your cities resources are there to be used for times like these. Sir can we double check your premises.

Me: If I see him or any suspicious activity, you'll be the first to know.

Officer: zajeban eden......he is a terrorist who just bombed the city killing and maned innocent men woman and children. He just killed and seriously injured police officers. Molise na boga da ne te vidi pred ti da go vidish oti mameto kje ti go ebi.........Sir can we double check your premises.

Me: After all, my kids sleep here and I don't want a dangerous person in my home. Rest assured, there is no terrorist here. If I do see him, you'll be the first to know.

Officer: Sir are you a parrot or a fucking moron.......I've answered these questions, now you are waisting time, this cities resources, which is aiding this wanted murderer. Mernise nastrana ili kje ti go Piknam pentrako vo gus. Ne igram igrachki so tebe pojke.

Fixed

Bill :

And what need was there for warrants? They killed the elder brother on public property (the street I believe),

Wrong......they took him down and arrested him out on the street. Then police jumped for their lives as the younger psychotic desperate brother (the one you wouldn't allow the police to search for in your home) drove a car towards them and run over his own brother, which resulted in the older brother dying.

[Bill77]

And Goce, your reference to Phoenix and my self jumping on Vangelovski's bandwagon for the sake of it (or something along those lines) is silly. As TM said there has been many times where we differed and not just with Vangelovski, but all the admins. It's all fine, we can't always agree. So it's a shame during our conversation on this topic, you resort to tactics like this in order to discredit what we say. Another attempt was I jumped in to the discussion simply because Vic is involved, like I have an agenda against him. This is not true, I don't have any issues with Vic, I have never had a discussion with him, if I have....then it couldn't have been bad for me to hold any grudge and store it.

I even defended you a couple of days ago, i respect almost everyone n here, so no hard feeling mate and keep punching above the belt.