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.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I see a verb in the making here ...

our interpretation of the Constitution

In all fairness, he did say interpretation, and that is exactly what SCOTUS is supposed to be doing. As described directly on their site:

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

Anonymous Coward says:

“And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist”

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.

Peter Voveris (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I like this and it is so right. So many people have died in the name of god, then any other way.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Your suggestion would violate the first amendment hard, and in more than one way. Do you really want to revoke the prohibition against religious tests to hold office? Do you not realize that it works both ways? And being atheist didn’t seem to stop Stalin from killing a ton of people. Or many of the other top killers of the last hundred years.

“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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your rant.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Religious texts are transparent fables, nothing more than the imagination of fertile minds from the bronze age and before. Religion has, and is, consistently anti-science and against inquiry. All religions have subsisted largely on lies and fear, and have been the accomplice of ignorance, guilt, slavery, genocide, racism, and tyranny.

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

That some states are violating the prohibition against religious tests doesn’t make the argument you are replying to invalid. It also doesn’t mean the person stating the argument is either ranting or religious. I agree that banning atheists is unacceptable, and those laws should be changed. That doesn’t mean the solution is to ban religious people. That’s just substituting one discrimination for another.

Anonymous Coward says:

Continue to Question

Here are some good interviews by the media:

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.

out_of_the_blue says:

Yet again, The Rich are the problem.

You’ve identified the real culprits, now just need to follow up the logic, tossing out the myths that The Rich spread which has them as producers not parasites.

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.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.

  1. zakida, generally with you on most issues…

  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

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.

“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%..”

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.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.

Taxes on unearned income should be steeply progressive to keep The Rich within some limits…

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?

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.

Unearned income is the foundation of Intellectual Property.

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.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.

Unearned income is the foundation of Intellectual Property.

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.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Yet again, The Rich are the problem.

It the company is providing a service that you value, then they are earning as much as you value the service.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Yet again, The Rich are the problem.

I’m behind you on this one blue. The third time ever. Don’t really understand why this one got voted down. Knee jerk reaction I guess. You got them trained like Pavlov’s dog; they see the out of the blue moniker and the mouse automagically Ouija’s itself to the report button. You cry wolf way too often but that is what keeps me reading. I love the odd nugget of clarity that occasionally seeps from your noggin. Thanks for the lulz and the occasional head nod.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re:

That’s ok, there are plenty of excellent quotes to choose from.

“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

Anonymous Coward says:

“But he’s giving them exactly what they want.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You’re not seriously arguing that we should put cameras on every street and start categorizing some religions as terrorists… are you? I mean it’s hard to tell because you’re taking some things literally here when they’re obviously metaphors in a sort of odd way that seems like a waste of time unless that’s what you’re arguing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“You’re not seriously arguing that we should put cameras on every street and start categorizing some religions as terrorists… are you?”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well that’s good that you don’t think they’re a good idea and I don’t think you’ll get any argument that those are not the terrorists’ explicit goals (no one said they were?)

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“The terrorists do not care if we do or do not have cameras on every street.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

There main goal, beyond keeping the populace terrified, is to change our way of life and erode our freedoms. Mission accomplished in spades since 9-11, mostly due to our lawmaker’s knee jerk reactions to “perceived” threats and an undeniable urge to help those who line their pockets the most protect there precious business models.

droozilla (profile) says:

As a NYC'r...

I am completely embarrassed, and on behalf of the city, I apologize for us putting this douchebag anywhere near a position of power. This is a man who thinks he knows what’s best, and will force it on you whether you like it or not.

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.

Ninja (profile) says:

It is pitiful that he wants to change what a lot of people all over the world believe to be one of the most well crafted documents of its kind in the whole history. That’s no small feat. The US Constitution has shown to be pretty much able to remain in tune with times because they read as guidelines for building the legislative outline and they deal with timeless concepts such as freedom. There’s no such thing as freedom changing meaning over time or evolving. Either you are free or you are not.

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?

TasMot (profile) says:

The Pre-Police are not here yet

What it seems Bloomberg and many other politicians would like is to put everyone in a pen like good sheep and keep out the rest of that nasty world for us. However; being in the pen means eating, working and pooping on his schedule to his drummer. Unfortunatly, in the real world where we live, the only way to stop terrorists is to show that that “its not working”. It used to be that people died in a plane hijacking. Then everyone just followed orders and nobody died. Now planes don’t even get hijacked anymore. The problem seems to be that the “powers that be” want to stop all the bad stuff from happening before it happens (remember the perfect FBI record of stopping all of their own terrorist attacks). Unfortunatly, what we need is better ways for all of the various police forces to catch up (once again) to the bad guys. It will always be an effort to catch the criminals after the crime is done. There will never be a way to herd a group of free people into the pen and protect them from the big bad world. As I remember from the movie “An American President”, “Democracy is hard work. You have to work at it every day” (probably a bad paraphrase). There is no hope for the maintenance of our freedom by taking it all away. IT JUST DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY.

Anonymous Coward says:

A little proportionality, please

Americans are as likely to be killed by their furniture as by terrorists.

Yes, really.

See: and

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.

Digitari says:

I think Mr Bloomberg is correct, we do need to reinterpret the constitution, post haste, I think we should immediately remove the sections on “representatives’ of the people. we do not need any mayors or congressmen or senators any longer, the people on a whole, are able to input their will at the speed of the internet. it no longer takes days weeks months for information to spread. they have all outlived their usefulness. All we need now are just some administrators, ( and few at that)

Anonymous Coward says:

This is another manufactured crisis to attack the Constitution. I cannot say if this was completely carried out by our own government, or just allowed to happen. However, I suspect some are, at the very least, not catching the bad guys in order to drum up public opinion for the continued erosion of our rights.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re:

Isn’t it strange how anytime someone succeeds at wrecking havoc, we find ourselves in the same exact predicament, fighting to preserve our freedoms, not from terrorists but rather politicians? Since when was our choice reduced to either death or servitude? Anybody remember something called freedom? Hello?

shawnubis says:


These jackasses that want to rewrite the constitution need to start enforcing the laws that EXIST! The FBI should have known these bonheheads (the bombers) were bad news before the bombing! Russia expressed its concerns with the older brother back in 2011, the FBI interviewed him and had no reson to believe they were a threat. This Bloomberg nut-job wants to enforce more right-infringing government protection, but at the same time will want to take away our 2nd amendment right to protect ourselves.

PaulT (profile) says:

It’s always mystified me, really. I was born in a town that suffered a horrific IRA attack, and I grew up less than 30 miles away from another. I currently live within easy viewing distance of a Muslim country off my local beach, and I’ve visited at least 3 major cities in other countries that have been targets of terrorist attacks in the years between. Yet, I’ve never seen such a response that actually gives terrorists the ammunition and the cause they need to carry out their attacks as the responses that come from prominent American leaders – and many of you guys didn’t even accept terrorism mattered before 2001 (I refer you to the “Irish” who happily funded the IRA – and yes I know the English were hardly innocent, but neither are the US army).

Daniel Joseph Calvanese (profile) says:

...but we're the terrorists?

The majority of terrorism is our terrorism. For dubious reasons, we have bombed foreigners, overthrown governments, sided with dictators, started wars over fabricated incidents, bullied diplomats, and whatever else (and there’s a lot) for decades. We’ve been the terrorists all along, and we pretend we’re not.

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*.

Anonymous Coward says:

The mayor of NYC? One of the most corrupt cities in America? Ask the mayor of NYC exactly what he’s done to the hurricane victims? His codes, to protect us, are being used instead to force out long time residents because they can’t cough up mandatory fees and inspections. His friends, however can afford now to carve up those old communities, without any comments from the mayor of NYC. The mayor of NYC wants your attention here and there, but wants your eyes on that big gulp instead. Isn’t the mayor of NYC such a nice guy, he’d never rip you off. Never.

Anonymous Coward says:

The mayor of NYC? One of the most corrupt cities in America? Ask the mayor of NYC exactly what he’s done to the hurricane victims? His codes, to protect us, are being used instead to force out long time residents because they can’t cough up mandatory fees and inspections. His friends, however can afford now to carve up those old communities, without any comments from the mayor of NYC. The mayor of NYC wants your attention here and there, but wants your eyes on that big gulp instead. Isn’t the mayor of NYC such a nice guy, he’d never rip you off. Never.

Anonymous Coward says:

Has anyone noticed how, with each passing day, that New York City is starting to look more and more like Nazi Germany during the 1940’s, when Adolf Hitler was in charge?

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.

horse with no name says:

Another failing panic argument

Mayor Bloomberg isn’t wrong here, he is pointing out what the freedom at any cost people tend not to want to see. You are being attacked with your own freedoms. What makes it easy for these people to come to the US live is the same set of freedoms that you rail for. They turn around and use them against you, killing your friends and loved ones.

Absolute freedom is like any other absolute, that is to say absolutely unworkable.

Digitari says:

Re: Another failing panic argument

“with great power comes great responsibility” yes a quote from a comic book, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

I have to disagree with Tim on this one:

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.”

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.

The Real Michael says:

What is wrong with Jewish politicians like Bloomberg, Feinstein and the rest, pushing for broad invasions of privacy and erosions of civil liberties? Have they already forgotten their history, the enormity of Jewish suffering, directly proportinate to the amount of freedoms sacrificed to the German authorities under the guise of the *security of the state*? Those who fled Europe for this country came here to take back what was lost to them: namely, their freedom. You’d think someone like Bloomberg would be among the first to take a stand against any erosion of liberty and privacy.

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Wasn’t the point of their sacrifice to PROTECT our rights?


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.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes, I’m fully aware of the phony wars fought out of greed and corruption. I’m also not blind to Bloomberg’s Constitution-violating ‘stop-and-frisk’ program. The NYPD may as well be the modern day Gestapo. Even so, the fact remains that our soldiers gave their lives in service, while politicians such as Bloomberg are undermining the very liberties they sought to protect. It remains to be seen whether the people capitulate. Perhaps if NY grew a pair and protested en masse, ceasing all business and taking a stand united as one against this brazen assault on our Constitutional rights…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It remains to be seen whether the people capitulate.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

not Watertown which everybody already knows capitulated to a hostile police force.

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.

special-interesting (profile) says:

A public officials job IS to uphold the constitution. Its the reason for the job in the first place. Its Why we have elected officials. Makes one wonder what goes on in the minds of New York voters as they enter the ballot box. Now that Mayor Bloomberg has officially come out of the bag, and shown himself as a sympathizer of authoritarian regimes, has his democratic usefulness ended?

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.

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)


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. 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!

Gridlock says:

Funny how only the Jews are creating "Gun Control" laws

Sounds great, how about we cease all financial aid to Israel until they completely disarm their Jewish citizens (including the military & police) and then it will be the most peaceful nation in the world. There is Jewish “Logic” for you. Let them eat of their own sick poison pie that they shove under our noses. Another funny thing, no other nation in the world allows DUAL CITIZENS to make laws or enforce laws. Yet there is one special exception (by court order ruling against the Constitution) in which DUAL CITIZEN Jews from Israel can make laws in the USA. Funny how you can have anti-American traitors making laws in the USA. That also is one serious source of the problems that need fixing immediately.

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...