Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bomb

The Left is so wonderful...

I just cannot get enough of their Rev'rund Wright mentality that we deserve to be attacked.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/2...ta-yeah-we-totally-deserve-terrorist-attacks/

4est_4est_Gump said:

Bullshit.

We've been beating the hills of Afghanistan for a decade looking for them while they have quietly moved on to other garden spots across the globe. Hell, we even ran guns out of Benghazi to arm the fuckers in Syria and the Brotherhood is looking the other way while they operate against Israel...

Click to expand...

Our military presence in Afghanistan is, in addition to the expressed "invitation" of the Karzai government, under authority granted by Congress in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, passed on September 14, 2001. Here is the specific language of the operative part of that legislation: (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Our initial incursion into Afghanistan and our current efforts to repel the insurgency festering in outlying provinces was and is not primarily directed at AlQaeda per se. It was and is against the Taliban forces who, when they constituted the ruling authority in Afghanistan over a decade ago, "aided" and "harbored" the AlQaeda leadership. Those two facts continue to legitimize our use of force in Afghanistan today under the AUMF.

In fact, wherever uniformed American military forces face an organized, reasonably equipped terrorist enemy on an obvious field of battle, it is not difficult to support the logic of war under the AUMF despite its operative linkage to specific events in September of 2001 which continue to recede in time.

But the elder Tsarnaev brother was only 14-years-old on 9/11. The younger brother was only seven. They obviously were not among the principally defined players with respect to the events of 9/11. Neither have they yet been directly associated with or shown to have been operationally controlled by AQaeda. So the question comes down to whether ANY acts of terrorism committed in sympatico with AlQaeda (or even radical jihad generally) may be appropriately tried by military commissions.

Or at least it would come down to such a question were it not for one other thing. Section 202 Persons Subject to the Jurisdiction of the Military Commissions of the Military Commissions Act of 2009 says:

(a) In general. Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not an alien. He is an American citizen. At this point, the argument is not whether MCA 2009 could have defined for itself a broader jurisdictional mandate. The crucial point is simply that it did not and that there is nothing ambiguous about that omission.

Colonel Hogan said:

Our military presence in Afghanistan is, in addition to the expressed "invitation" of the Karzai government,.

Click to expand...

Camera's like towels

Are good AFTER DEATH AND MAYHEM


Give all MUSLIMS

17 minutes to get the fuck out

OR KILL EM


Saying Privacy Is 'Off the Table,' NYC Police Commissioner Demands More Surveillance Cameras





Reason 24/7ReasonFrom the Department of Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste comes word that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly thinks that now is a great time to install even more surveillance cameras hither and yon around the Big Apple. After the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaev brothers were famously captured on security camera footage and thereby identified. That just may soften up Americans to the idea of the all-seeing glass eye. "I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table," Kelly gloats.

From WNYC:


Could more cameras in New York City help prevent attacks like the one at the Boston Marathon? That's what Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says the NYPD is looking into.

The department already uses so-called smart cameras that hone in on unattended bags, and set off alarms.

Kelly dismisses critics who argue that increased cameras threaten privacy rights, giving governments the ability to monitor people in public spaces.

“The people who complain about it, I would say, are a relatively small number of folks, because the genie is out of the bottle,” Kelly said. “People realize that everywhere you go now, your picture is taken.”

Surveillance cameras helped authorities find the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing — giving more fuel to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly’s argument that the more cameras exist, the better.

The NYPD is touting its use of the so-called smart cameras that have been used for nearly a decade in Lower Manhattan to identify potential threats such as unattended bags left for too long.

As Reason's own Brian Doherty has pointed out, surveillance advocates conveniently forget that it was private security cameras from which footage is shared with authorities only in emergencies, like the aftermath of the bombing, that did the honors in Boston. Cautions Doherty:


The public spaces of Boston were already filled with enough private cameras to close the net on the suspects. Ubiquitous public cameras—watched always by officials with power over us—raise obvious problems, as the American Civil Liberties Union has noted, of criminal abuse, institutional abuse, personal abuse on the part of officials, discrimination, and rampant voyeurism.

Of course, what Kelly wants is public cameras — specifically, an expanded network of police-controlled "smart" cameras watching the city and responding automatically to perceived dangers. With the public frightened and in no mood to consider that surveillance cameras pose their own dangers, he just might get his wish.

Anquan Jihad said:

We should have LAWS against MUSLIMS

THAT IS THE ISSUE

Click to expand...

You're calling for a 28th Amendment to repeal the 1st?

eyer said:

You're calling for a 28th Amendment to repeal the 1st?

Click to expand...

stfu, loon

Anquan Jihad said:

stfu, loon

Click to expand...

A simple Yes would've sufficed...

...but at least now it's clear you hold lawlessness in common with your fellow usurpers who covertly target the 2nd.

Edit to add:

What's truly perfect - so perfect, in fact, you can't even see it - is that you made the effort to title a thread dissing another for championing a changing interpretation of the Constitution...

...while you, too, are championing an outright illegal interpretation yourself.

Too friggin' funny...