Candlestick. Loma Prieta. 1989.
2014 Pacific rim pops, All teams lose....

Doritos™/ADM brand corn chips and martial law for everyone.

...Oh-and for FUCKSAKE get rid of the prison industry in America, educate and embrace the African American and Hispanic bulk of the occupants of the same (race war continues, in the form of safety for the "LAW ABIDING"), and pick a dead city to stuff all the goddamn gang-bangers in. There are some really great humans locked-away forever there who have something to contribute to society, but the prison is nothing but a training-ground for another generation of humans who will be used to justify totalitarian control, martial law, and the annihilation of all freedoms for all of humanity.

Escape form New York would be a wonderful scenario. Let Dick fucking Cheney and his types set-up their little summer-homes there along with their residences and bases of operation.

I don't want a police state unless it has limited borders full of all the hind-brain motherfuckers in it-The rest of us can live in peace and comfort.

Legalize all drugs at the same time, and let those with weak wills, off themselves into a stupor. They won't have to steal your little X-boxes and smartphones, your vehicles and TV's, to buy their drugs. Give em all they want. I'd rather trip-over junkies than have savages invade my domicile to buy crack.

NDAA 2007 basically overrode Posse Comitatus, even though it's overreach was repealed later. NDAA 2012 extended the definition of covered persons to include " any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities." A covered person is someone that is subject to martial law and exempt from Posse Comitatus. Of course, it's kinda hard to declare martial law on just one person which is why you saw martial law in full effect following the Boston bombing.

However, to answer your question, this was a military exercise, not US Armed Forces (with the exception for the National Guard and Coast Guard) enforcing domestic law. Of course, extrapolating from @chingalera 's tags, this exercise serves a more sinister purpose. I'll leave it up to him to expound on that.

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right.

Says you. You have no idea what they knew or didn’t know. How many people would he have to endanger to declare martial law (which they didn’t)? This idiotic logic you choose to use, that 1 man couldn’t possibly be a risk to ¾ million people, completely ignores that he was, as evidenced by his actions up to that point, a danger to some of those ¾ million people. I can’t believe I’m actually defending the cops, but defending the public is exactly what I believe their jobs should be (as opposed to primarily raising revenue by writing tickets), and until I see evidence to the contrary, it appears they did just that with the knowledge of the situation and the suspects that they had at the time, and until you can show different, the warrantless searches seemed reasonable.

If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.

You don’t have a right to freedom from search and seizure. You have a right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Living in a free country gives you the right to be as ignorant as you wish about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, but demonstrating that ignorance in a public forum such as this should be embarrassing.

Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them.

“I have heard some say” is the most common and sleazy way of introducing an idea one has not a lick of evidence for, but wants to wedge into the conversation because it supports, again, a narrative he/she wants to advance. You said it and then only denied you were one who said it. You went on to truss up the notion of “compliance test”, and imply your agreement of it, with “difficult to argue against that idea”, and then revealed your conspiracy nuttery with “so they don't want to (or can't afford) to do this again”. The next paragraph’s lame appeal to patriotism and nationalist dogma betrays an authoritarian worldview. You don’t have a reading comprehension problem. You have a reality comprehension problem.

Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.

Unlike you, I understand what the Fourth Amendment says, but I'm pretty sure I also understand what you and your ilk wish it would say. Again (again), you choose to detach “unreasonable” from “search and seizure”, which, I think, demonstrates that even you realize the invalidity of your blustering, and that your primary purpose here is to advance a narrative.

{snipped lots of ridiculous, ignorant horseshit of personal beliefs about police actions and procedures he has no evidence whatsoever to support; read it above if you need a chuckle; #youtubelawyer}

Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.

I didn’t suggest anything of the sort, although you continue on in your paragraph with the false presumption that I did. I don't even know of anybody who does suggest it. It only seems to exist in your paranoid fantasies. Do you have any point or argument that you didn’t pull out of your ass, or anything that doesn’t rely upon some other bit of info you assumed, presumed, or just fabricated? This isn’t YouTube. You can find support here, but your bullshit will be called, and criticism won’t be muted by the endless scroll of a thousand comments.

If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.

Oy... more authoritarian nuttery. Australia is awesome, btw. Bravest thing their government ever did was pass effective gun control. That we should have such courage…


Edit: Went a leeetle too far

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right. If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.
Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them. Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.
As to what they might find that would make it 'justified', nothing in my mind, but in theirs could be a different story. They leave it open for the GBs out there to call this a 'deadly ruse' amongst other things, and to claim it was simply a way to enter and search peoples homes for whatever they might find (remember, that's how many departments fund themselves, with seizures, so there's a great reason for them to want to know if there's something to seize).
I'm of the opinion that the Boston police saw an opportunity to enter at least some homes they knew full well were not in danger but that they were 'suspicious' of under the 'public safety' umbrella, and likely brought charges against some for what they found, but that's just a guess based on past behavior, I have no evidence that this happened.
I believe the police should have narrowed the search area to less than one square block once they knew where he was, not randomly search homes for him when they have no idea whatsoever where he is. There's no danger if he's not there, so no excuse to enter. If they don't know, but search anyway, that's an illegal warrantless search. If they pull their guns on you and train them at you (which they seemed to do in the video) they put your life in danger for no reason and should be prosecuted for brandishing.
No one (after the carjack victim not in a home) was held against their will, no one needed saving. When they don't know where the suspect is, they don't know where to search for him, so should not enter any home uninvited. How do you not get that? If they don't know where he is or what he's doing or even if he's armed (which it turns out he was not) then there's no exigent circumstance. Period. They only exist when there is knowledge of the suspects actual presence and evidence the he's either threatening others or evidence, not the worry that he might be.
Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.
If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.
Apologies for the long post.

So why was not Martial Law declared for this? That would have clearly made this a legal procedure?

there's a key word in my explanation (which the definition is posted in another comment); Under exigent circumstances, meaning using the excuse of "oh.. we're just looking for someone" isn't considered under that label. Also, probable cause can be used in a search without a warrant (i.e. shots reported in a building etc..).

Secondly, the entire city of Boston was on lockdown under a Public Safety measure (no martial law was called at the time), but national guard was patrolling the search area and aiding local enforcement. Anyone found on the streets walking around was instantly stopped and carded for info.

Again, the searches were not unwarranted and they were not illegal. They only searched the houses in the search area, they proceeded with by the book maneuvers. No one was mishandled in the searches from what I see in that video or any other account.

As I said, "We're scared" or in other words 'exigent circumstances' are not legitimate reasons for suspension of civil rights. If you believe a 'manhunt' makes it legal for unwarranted search and seizures then I ask you, when is it NOT legal for them to enter your home without a warrant? There is ALWAYS a 'manhunt' in operation, technically every person with a warrant out is a 'manhunt in progress'. Your suggestion leaves no conclusion except you believe we have already given up the right protecting us from unwarranted search and seizure in our own homes. I disagree with that assertion, and suggest that during these types of extreme circumstances are exactly the times when it is imperative to exercise your rights, not capitulate and allow them to simply strip those rights from you or ignore them without consequence.
If they were in pursuit of a suspect and KNEW he was on or had traveled through the property, that's another story, but that's not the case here.
I did not hear that martial law had been implemented...there may be some validity to that argument, I'm less sure about that circumstance.
Still I suggest that rights only exist if they can be used at ALL times, not just when it's convenient for the government to allow them.

They're not illegal searches, a warrant isn't needed if it's under exigent circumstances (i.e. Martial Law, manhunt, etc).
If this were under different circumstances, then yes, I'd be upset, but they're looking for someone who's already killed, and injured people, and who's already shown behavior that they will attack on a whim.

I have heard some say that Boston was a test of martial law to see how compliant the populace has become. I am not one of those people, but videos of things like this make it difficult to argue against that idea. I hope Boston has hundreds of violation of civil rights lawsuits coming and millions in damages to pay it's citizens so they don't want to (or can't afford) to do this again.
"We're scared" is not a legitimate reason for suspension of your civil rights, I hope Bostonians don't let them slide because they were scared this time too. This is supposed to be the land of the brave people, what the hell has happened to youall? Please grow a spine and demand the rights my forefathers fought and died to secure for us or we'll all lose them.
It is disheartening to think that, if this were a test of compliance, we have scored a 'perfect' 100%.

"Hurricanes don't kill people,but their aftermath provides the perfect testing ground for shock-troops, crowd control, and martial law."

"Sensible people don't propose shitting on constitutional rights, but former mayor of San Francisco and democratic out-of-touch cunt senator Diane Feinstein does."

personal favorite: "Legalize Homicide"

So, we just need to dag a gun before Obama imposes martial law before the next election? That, arranged, can be.

Basically, sociopathy has invaded the eye of the beholder, in which beauty lays.

They™ are such great models to emulate, or what I mean is meant for us to become like--and this sociopathic path is so nicely bi-partisan and such androgyny for any religion within their™ great scope to make sure eventually, under martial law, we will all be one! I wonder if we can eventually trademark our sanity, psyche, and psychology and neatly put it in a vacuum sealed metal container, which we can slide over the cliff of which is the sea of consumer entertainment marketing...? I'll™ love it when I™ can do that!

I know this is a little too much akin to "1984" or like an over-ripe conspiracy theory. The truth is actually much uglier and far more scary!


/fucking companies; they are fucked up
//fucking bought politicians by said fucking companies are fucked up
///thus, your movie, magazine, and music -- currently -- are fucked up

Be careful, if there's too much outrage we're going to have to legitimize the law by using it against a universally loathed figure.
I guess all we need now is a civil emergency. Framework for martial law, check. Domestic "surveillance" drones, check. FEMA Camps, check. Looks like those damn conspiracy kooks were right after all. (again)

@NetRunner
You're living proof that psychological warfare is a more powerful weapon than any gun or bomb. So vetoing the bill would've been political theater, but the hollow signing statement is "good"? LOL What about Obama spending months pledging to veto the bill, was that political theater? I guess we don't actually expect the President to keep his word, do we?

Main point that Cenk omits:
Specifically, it was the White House, not lawmakers, that demanded Section 1031 be expanded to empower the government to detain U.S. citizens without trial.

Uploaded to YouTube Dec 10, 2011:


Also, Obama has been claiming for over a year and a half that he could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process. (http://www.salon.com/2010/06/25/assassinations_3/)

Recent Greenwald articles on the NDAA:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

Hi, @kronos1

Your video
http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-NDAA-Bill-Establishes-Martial-Law-In-America
comes the Youtube channel of Qronos16. Linking from your own Youtube channel is not allowed on Videosift.

From the FAQ:

Please do not self link.

While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on or promoting, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you are associated with a project you think is truly amazing and must be shared, please contact us. We'll take a look at it and if we also think it's great too, we'll post it for you. If you attempt to post it yourself, your video and account will be deleted. Hey, it's harsh, but it's harsh love.

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If your post is not a Sponsored Video (the only allowed way to promote your own content) and any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:

The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).
You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.

If you self link, regardless of your logic or explanation, you are violating the posting guidelines. There are no exceptions for any reason, whatsoever.

If this is your Youtube page you are subject to being Banned from the site.