Why did the FBI release photos of the brother bombers? Anyone? Bueller?
We know the FBI had a file on them, talked to them, and received reports on them from the Russians.
The only reason I can think of was to get the brothers killed; no defense attorneys, no trial, and no defendants to tell their tale. A tale that probably involves the FBI and their failed attempts to turn the older brother into an informant or pretend rabble-rouser who could draw in some half-retarded easily manipulated Muslim kid they could take advantage of and build a case against for terrorism.
It all most worked damn it, but 700 rounds into that boat by jacked-up local cops who could not have cared less about “don’t shoot” and “seize fire” orders later the kid walked away. WTF
That’s what happened IMHO.
So please folks, let’s not bring out the hero worship again on the bombing anniversary. The feds knew who the bombers were. they had files on them and agents in the Boston office interviewed them.
The FBI wanted them dead so they put a contract out on their lives. That’s what releasing the pictures to the public was.
The local yokals, including he Mass State Police, did a shitty job looking for the brother hiding in the boat in the nearby backyard.
They did however do a tremendous job playing with all their militaristic toys and armor for a show of force on the innocents of Watertown.
Then after that failed yet frightening performance they were told:
1.where the bomber was; and
2. Don’t shoot.
I’m sorry to be the one to tell ya folks but nothing to be proud of here.
kirth says
I don’t know about the photo-release speculations, but all the copsterbation is uncalled for. If anything, the cops should be embarrassed by how ineffective all their massive force turned out to be. They did manage to kill the one armed brother, and the boat, but if you think about it, their lack of organization and discipline is scary.
SomervilleTom says
These maroons in uniform apparently set up a quite-literal “circular firing squad” in the middle of a residential neighborhood and still missed their guy. The older brother died when the younger brother ran him over in a car that was still in running order despite the attentions of the thousands of Keystone Cops.
The most memorable image of the entire week, for me, remains that of Governor Deval Patrick looking up at Police Commissioner Ed Davis, apparently deferentially.
It is clear enough, from that photo, who is in leading and who is following.
farnkoff says
to search backyards? Not sure why it took a civilian to find the injured guy in the boat- that certainly could have turned out worse for the boat owner. And the shootout at the OK Corral stuff- not too safe for civilians by any stretch of the imagination. Also, I’m obviously still disturbed by the bizarre incident with Todashev. Why didn’t he ask for a lawyer before supposedly writing a confession then committing suicide by cop with a broom handle? How could Florida AG Ashton investigate that incident without interviewing the FBI agent involved? Did the FBI somehow decline to make the shooter available for the investigation of the homicide? By what absurd reasoning should that be permissible?
JimC says
Ernie, you appear to be saying that the FBI’s release of the photos (which was unusual, but not terribly unusual given the context — I remember Unabomber sketches) was a sort of coded message to the cops: shoot these guys on sight, because the public won’t care. By contrast, the guy shot in Florida was not known, and we still ask questions about it. But everybody would move on from the Tsarnaevs getting shot.
If so … well, I can’t rule it out, but it seems a little too subtle.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
knew that there was a possibility that the two would end up dead by an over zealous law enforcement types.
The Unabomber turned out to be a hermit whose existence the FBI was unaware of. That’s why all they has to go on was a sketch.
Here the FBI had photos, files, and agents that spoke to at least one of them at least on one occasion.
What the FBI did is dome in the movies all the time. Get someone rightfully or wrongfully pissed off at someone else and then watch him exact revenge.
merrimackguy says
I don’t know about the photo release part, but..
1. I thought the Watertown manhunt was outrageous. All that force, the door to door searches and with no result they were packing up until a civilian goes out for a smoke and notices something. Not to mention earlier in the day when a platoon of cops is unable to stop a college student driving a Honda.
2. The military force on display was disgusting. Just like the US military with all its weaponry couldn’t stop 9-11, all that SWAT stuff is completely wasted. We need computer geeks and clerks on these kinds of jobs to prevent them, not macho types with heavy weapons.
3. Now they’re all congratulating each other. Real law enforcement professionals.
merrimackguy says
1. Despite the cease fire order
2. And why didn’t they hit him? He’s in a boat!
howlandlewnatick says
Police have little discipline. They answer more to the unions than the management.
They are scared in a gunfight. No shame in that (who isn’t?) as the overwhelming majority of police never unholster their weapon in anger during their careers. Police aren’t combat troops. In one of the capture pictures the weapon’s laser is focused on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s forehead. Dramatic maybe, but with training perhaps the officer would learn that body center-mass is more likely to get a hit. (Let us not forget about the friendly fire incident…)
Well, at least they weren’t holding their weapons sideways…
Is it a firefight when only one side is armed?
“The police are not here to create disorder, they’re here to preserve disorder.” –Richard J. Daley
merrimackguy says
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/justice/albuquerque-police-brutality-report/
and when they’re not shooting they’re tasering.
merrimackguy says
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/local-police-tanks??src=rss
howlandlewnatick says
The local yokels that get the “free tanks” will realize that the maintenance on those things will bankrupt their town. You don’t take them to the local garage. Expect write-ins on the contract that specify factory techs at prevailing rates and limits on to whom you may transfer the thing.
That old macho feelin’ of clanging down the highway on the way to deliver a parking summons with a dozen Darth Vader look-alikes on board will falter when the bills come in.
“Fool and your tax dollars are soon parted” –old saying
merrimackguy says
When he was elected he dumped their armored personnel carrier. About $50K annually to maintain it.
howlandlewnatick says
When Albuquerque cops kill more people than NYC cops something is out of line. We see everywhere police morphing in Jose Canseco physiques. It’s an open secret in police departments.
“Policemen so cherish their status as keepers of the peace and protectors of the public that they have occasionally been known to beat to death those citizens or groups who question that status.”” –David Mamet
jconway says
Feel free to post on these sites as much as you want. They will rightly take you more seriously than BMG should.
fenway49 says
From my perch about three miles away I, too, thought the lockdown and Watertown situation were way overblown.
jconway says
But the FBI conspiracy theory bullshit Ernie always keeps peddling. Didn’t he get banned for this exact post right after the bombings?
People have a right to engage in conspiracy theories and they are welcome to join the forums I linked to. The rest of us want to talk about progressive politics.
We already had a lengthly debate over the lockdown while it was going on. We just lost two first responders last week, we are about to commemorate the one year anniversary of the loss of Officer Collier, and while I think there are legitimate criticisms of how law enforcement reacted a lot of these allegations are spurious.
Were they the Keystone cops or the Gestapo? Pick a meme and stick with it I guess. I would argue they were regular hardworking people doing the best job they could under the glare of the international media, they got their men, end of story.
JimC says
… with weapons that would make the Gestapo weep with jealousy.
That’s why we have to keep discussing this, and why I’m willing to give Ernie wide latitude (that, and the fact that he’s entertaining).
jconway says
That’s a subjective and decidedly minority opinion.
JimC says
Wait, what? I hold a subjective and decidedly minority opinion?
(Miasma of self-doubt descends … and doesn’t even have the courtesy to bring a pizza.)
judy-meredith says
And have confidence in your sophisticated appreciation of satire and wit.
kirth says
Trying to equate their deaths in the line of duty with the Watertown free-for-all is off the mark, as is your broad-brush sliming of all the people here who object to the cops celebrating their supposed professionalism. Trying to link us to 911 truthers and JFKonspiratists is out of line.
jconway says
I saw large swaths of the Watertown population come out in force to cheer the end to this nightmare. None of my mothers friends or relatives in Watertown expressed any other sentiment. And they got the guy. You honestly think letting transit channels stay open to allow them to escape would’ve been a wise course of action in the name of civil liberties?
I get the Coakley bashing, the NSA bashing, that we overreacted to light brights, and probably overreacted in a wide variety of ways after 9/11. I just don’t see what bashing the State Police, BFD, BPD, and others who put their lives on the line makes any sense. Tom whined about not being able to go outside, but for the people who were actually involved in this legitimate counter terrorist operation I don’t think it was a walk in the park or a picnic. Ed Davis has been widely praised in a variety of diverse corners, and compared to some (Bratton and Rudy come to mind) hasn’t tried to cash in on his success or be anything other than professional about it.
I took a long time for liberals to overrcome the anti-soldier and anti-cop angle, there are aspects of the lockdown and house to house searches that could’ve been done better, but they got their man, took him alive in custody, and the threat to the city was relatively quickly resolved. I don’t think we can really argue with that. Particularly since none of us as far as I know have the technical expertise to credibly critique the response.
SomervilleTom says
You ask “how were they unprofessional”.
Here’s what I think was unprofessional:
– Firing hundreds of shots in a residential neighborhood, at night when residents are likely to be in their homes and therefore at risk.
– Missing the target of the fusillade but striking one of their own
– Not immediately disabling the vehicle used by the targets
– Locking down an entire metropolitan region
– Shutting down the entire MBTA, even after spending ENORMOUS sums of money for electronic signs and similar apparatus explicitly acquired for just these situations
etc., etc., etc.
“Legitimate counter-terrorist operation”? Please, spare me. Two amateur wanna-be’s, with increasing evidence that one was in fact an FBI informant.
I honestly think that it is absurd and ridiculous that THOUSANDS of armed police couldn’t apprehend these two suspects without shutting down the entire T.
I thought it was a DRASTIC overreaction at the time, and said so here. It’s a year later, and in my view the evidence confirms my initial reaction.
I think this was kibuki theater, aimed at sending a clear message to the citizens of Massachusetts that we are a hairs-breadth away from martial law enforced by a heavily-armed, inexperienced, and undisciplined police force.
Christopher says
…it was certain sexual innuendo that got him banned rather than questioning police conduct per se.
fenway49 says
Only the first six comments on this thread were showing. Take issue with Ernie’s FBI theory all you want, but you said “you guys,” which to me includes the early commenters and those who thought they had a point.
To equate people’s relief that the guy was caught with some sort of evidence that things were handled well is a little off. I have members of my family in fire departments and in the police (which are two very different things). I understand how hard both jobs can be, but we as citizens have the right to comment when police response is way overblown. And this is of a piece with some disturbing trends, including the NSA spying and police departments like Concord, NH, wanting to a buy a tank in case something like Occupy ever happens again.
I’ve been looking at abandoned backpacks with suspicion for most of my life. I was thirteen and visiting cousins in County Derry when a bus was blown up 20 miles away. I have cousins in Belfast who never were told to spend the whole day hiding inside. In 1995 I was living in Paris when bombs were going off in public trash barrels every couple of weeks. They sealed the trash barrels hermetically (which led to civilized Parisians leaving their trash in neat piles next to them, which were picked up by the city every two hours). They never once shut down the city like we did here.
I was in the World Trade Center an hour before the first bombing in 1993. No shutdown. I was a mile away on 9/11. Four hours later I took the subway back to Brooklyn. As it turned out, I had to pick my 19-year-old cousin (who’d taken a bus into South Station) up at 2 the day of the Watertown events. It was just eerie to see virtually no cars on the streets or the Mass Pike. All for one (admittedly dangerous) 19-year old.
And I wouldn’t go citing Rudy Giuliani as an example of great leadership. I lived in New York for practically his whole tenure. He was a nasty, divisive man whose major accomplishment was not publicly shitting his pants on September 11, 2001, which he spent the next decade of his life cynically using in an effort to reach the White House or, in the alternative, cash in.
jconway says
Is this a reply to my earlier comments (hard to tell with the way they embed)?
Where did I ever cite Giuliani or praise him?
What I am trying to say is there is a balanced approach to criticism and a perspective that gets lost here. We want to ensure a balance between overreaction and under-reaction. I think we can critique some of the decisions made by the leaders of the various law enforcement organizations, I think it is another thing to critique cops and make blanket statements attacking them. It’s counter productive, unfair to a group of unionized workers we should be standing behind, and it distracts us from advancing the progressive policing that works.
So I think Toms comments below about what he would’ve done differently are a bit more nuanced and thought out than his more emotional responses above. And I take greater issue with merrimack talking about how cops are somehow worse than terrorists, and I take issue with those that feel the FBI executed a guy and somehow was behind the bombers or bombing. It’s highly divorced from reality, and really makes the blog look bad, IMHO.
kirth says
If you’re going to complain about fenway’s reference to Rudy G, I think it’s fair to ask you exactly where merrimackguy said cops are worse than terrorists. I can’t find it.
jconway says
I don’t recall mentioning Rudy anywhere. He is a repugnant person.
kirth says
That was somebody else. It also isn’t saying “cops are worse than terrorists.”
merrimackguy says
As this has turned into a general post about excessive force I thought the Albuquerque link was appropriate.
Sorry jconway that facts get in the way of your attack on me.
fenway49 says
It was in response to your comment that your sarcasm wasn’t directed at the lockdown comments, but I figured I’d address some other stuff than was posted later.
FYI, my Rudy comments were in response to something you wrote on Friday, which I misread. I take it back:
I think the relationship between progressives (and labor) and those “unionized” cops is a lot more complex. There’s a long, and not very good, history there. I remember the NYC PBA going three times for Giuliani, who was out to get every other union. Not to mention dozens of key police unions endorsing Scott Walker. Solidarity is a two-way street.
jconway says
But it depends on what kind of police union. Some are AFL-CIO but the FOP in its founding charter goes out of its way to say it’s not a “union” even if it meets all the characteristics of one. And typically it’s due to law and order policies and relatively tame treatment from those officials. FWIW the OH firefighters and cops refused to back Romney and fought with other unions against Kasich. The metro locals backed Barrett against Walker though the statewides (with a more rural and suburban membership) backed Scott.
I am saying I agree it’s a two way street and they should be marching with teachers but as working class government workers it is counter productive to demonize them collectively. It’s what I initially objected to, I think my statements below where Tom and I have a meeting of the minds shows us where we can go when the decibel levels are lowered and the inflammatory rhetoric dropped, on both accounts. My links were immature, I’ll take the hit for that. But I’ll stand by my other statements here.
Appreciate the exchanges with you as well Fenway.
fenway49 says
They almost never have been. They’re much more likely to smash their heads in if they try to march. The Milwaukee Police Association, as I recall, supported Walker in the 2010 election and the recalll, just to find him talking about stripping their rights in 2013. Then they were all like, “Whaaaaaa?” Fuck ’em.
The Ohio firefighters, I recall, were furious when the NYC union endorsed Bush in 2004. I used to give money to the NYC UFA drive every year. When they endorsed Bush I told them to go to hell. But the NYC guys were the only ones to endorse Bush. The firefighters seem to be more consistently Democratic than the police unions.
johnk says
with the Candlestick in the Conservatory.
mike_cote says
I think you mean “Ceasefire”. Seriously, have you ever heard of spellcheck?
Christopher says
…”seize fire” are two correctly spelled words. Spellcheck would not pick it up.
Christopher says
Don’t law enforcement agencies release photos or sketches of suspects all the time? Usually the admonition is if you see this person call the authorities, not if you see this person shoot on sight.
mike_cote says
Truthers are not interested in logic, they are only interested in getting their crackpot theories out there. Nice try thought.
fenway49 says
Seriously, have you never heard of spellcheck?
Just kidding.
mike_cote says
hoisted on my on petard!
fenway49 says
The word is “own,” Mike
mike_cote says
I got nothing.
bob-gardner says
have you seen a picture of the person who shot Todashev? For that matter, have you seen his name, or the pictures and names of the two state troopers who were there and participated in the killing?
howlandlewnatick says
Next someone will tell us of FBI agents conspiring with Southie thugs. How absurd! Neither Jimmy Stewart nor Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. would stand for it. /snark
COINTELPRO?
“Politics is the conspiracy of the unproductive but organized against the productive but unorganized.” –Joseph Sobran
jconway says
Whitey is the victim in Ernie’s eyes from that fiasco!
SomervilleTom says
Nevertheless, the conspiracy was real.
The FBI did, in fact, conspire with Southie thugs (and not just Southie) to protect other thugs. A conspiracy that included covering up serious crimes, including murder. That conspiracy included but was not limited personal and venal corruption on the part of at least one FBI agent. There is strong evidence that the conspiracy was known of and encouraged by the Washington headquarters of the FBI. The conspiracy also extended to include members of the Massachusetts State Police and apparently the prosecutor’s office as well.
This is NOT some tin-foil fantasy of EB3.
I remind you that I have lived through the massacre of students at Kent State and Jackson State university. I was a freshman in college at the time, and I too told my more radical friends prior to those episodes that the government would never kill students. I was wrong.
I lived in Washington DC while Watergate was going down. My personal friends have been denied clearances as adults because of student protests they conducted while in high school — reported by FBI spies. Norman Solomon was a personal friend, I was a founding member of the Montgomery County Student Alliance, and I’m confident that the FBI has a file on me as well (emphasis mine):
I’m a little weary of people like yourself, too young to have experienced these things first hand, telling me that I should express my concerns on various tin-foil-hat conspiracy sites.
I encourage you to either gain a little more respect for those with more life experience than you or do a little more research before dismissing views that strike you as “overblown”.
To answer one of your perhaps rhetorical questions, I use the phrase “Keystone Cops” to express my contempt for the utter incompetence demonstrated a year ago. I think the term “Gestapo” is an accurate characterization of what will result if and when they ever become competent.
The NSA is already conducting surveillance operations that would be the envy of Stasi. I think the behavior of our authorities a year ago demonstrates their passionate desire to be the boots-on-the-ground to enforce the “learnings” from that surveillance.
I’m going to stay home on Marathon Monday — I’m going to stay home because I think the entire metropolitan area will be filled with heavily-armed, under-trained, and overly excited young men and women in uniform. I think the “cure” of our “increased security” is a far, far more acute threat than any actions of any bad guys that might be around.
jconway says
Again I went to high school with both of the bombers, we shared some of the same history teachers. My mother was detained and questioned by the FBI who confused her with someone completely different as I’ve stated elsewhere, another member of my family was an anti-mafia FBI informant and let’s just say they didn’t have his back and leave it at that. So I take the FBI/Whitey connection personally. I don’t agree, as EB3 does, that somehow Billy is innocent or that Whitey doesn’t deserve the punishment he will likely end up getting. I just don’t.
I also don’t believe for a second that there is enough evidence at the moment to suggest that the FBI knew about the bombers, allowed them to commit their crimes, and covered up their mistakes. There just isn’t. Pressing our AG to investigate further and pressing our public officials to investigate the response and see areas where we could’ve done a better job, see if we could have apprehended them without resorting to a lockdown, and see if there can be better procedures for the future is fine. I also never have suggested I support the way the current security is handled for today’s Marathon or the NSA. You have consistently throughout this discourse ascribed positions and statements to me I do not hold and I have not made. Perhaps it is my own vagueness on what I would have done differently, but i honestly view this thread as counterproductive-especially in comparison to the threads where we have made gains and are in agreement regarding NSA revelations and the like.
I would also suggest, though unlike you I won’t presume, that you don’t know any cops, firefighters, or first responders that were affected on that day. That you don’t have an accused terrorist who went to school with you, dated your friends, and the sting of having that cloud the reputation of my high school which is incredibly diverse and tolerant and has had its values attacked because somehow *we* are collectively responsible for *creating* these guys in the eyes of the media.
I wanted him buried in Cambridge cemetary and think Healy didn’t have the courage to fight the mob, I want his brother tried in accordance with US civil law since he is a citizen like the rest of us, I wanted him Mirandized and I want him to have access to attorneys and a good defense. I strongly oppose the death penalty being applied in that case or any other.
I have black friends, one of whom is running for Mayor against Emmanuel, who have been harassed by Chicago police for living in white neighborhoods. I have had Muslim friends get harassed by the FBI, I know people in the Worcester and Cambridge mosques who have had phones illegally tapped and the like, I am against fusion centers. I had friends in the anti war movement illegally beaten, arrested, and tazed by the overzealous NYPD during the 2004 RNC. I was there at our DNC and saw a ‘free speech zone’ that looked like a concentration camp and unnecessary shows of force. I am with you on most of these issues.
Where I am not with you is blanket denunciations of cops, second guessing every single decision our leaders made, insulting Commissioner Davis, Mennino, or Deval who did great work that entire week, insulting cops in a blanket way calling them all incompetent when they put their lives on the line, one died, and one got seriously injured. There is a balanced and nuanced way to conduct this conversation and I applaud your statements below where you outline what you would’ve done differently and I agree with many (though not all) of your recommendations. We can have this discussion civilly without resorting to a false black and white narrative or dichotomy.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
how do u manage?
You are making this a false black and white narrative.
You going to school with the bombers means shit.
You knowing cops means shit.
You knowing a few non-poor whites and blacks who got jammed by the cops means shit.
You have proved Tom’s point by crying over and over about your personal experiences.
Yet you have not provided one logical point in defense of the keystone cops fiasco.
Oh wait, you did. You know cops and Muslims and black people. Never mind.
JimC says
You aren’t really arguing against anything we’re discussing. You are, however, proving why the discussion is important.
methuenprogressive says
Shame.
jconway says
N/t
merrimackguy says
to the cops can do no wrong crowd.
kirth says
Those who have serious reservations about the increasing militarization of police do not dictate what the site is. Neither do you, and if you don’t share those reservations to at least some degree, I’m glad you don’t.
HeartlandDem says
Respectfully, I disagree with the conclusion that because this subject is a polarizing issue and “personalities” may be swaying opinions rather than pure principles, that it has caused – or that there is any correlation w/BluemassGroup devolving.
I reject that assertion and suggest that this subject is, has been and will continues to be controversial with valid points coming from either pole.
I sit snugly in the large group that struggles with the tenuous balance of liberty and public safety. It has never felt static but rather fluid – requiring much sustained and diligent deliberation by all in the spectrum.
farnkoff says
Many are courageous, kind people who want more than anything to help people and ensure that justice prevails. And some of them are morons with a license to kill people. No conspiracy theory necessary. We have a responsibility to keep a close eye on the folks with guns and power.
SomervilleTom says
Sounds like neither of you has had your teeth broken by a nightstick wielded by a “police officer” ordered to stop you from exercising your right of free speech. Sounds like neither of you have done actual physical battle with the unholy alliance that too often cements factory-owners and local authorities together in opposition to working men and women who, for example, want a safe workplace. Sounds like both of you have perhaps spent rather too much time reading press releases from campaigns and city halls about “heroic first responders”, and perhaps rather not enough time with friends and family members of the victims of misguided “increased security” imposed (especially on minorities and other scapegoats) by some of those “heroes”.
An important reason why cops are different from Nazis is that in a free society like ours, with active discussion like we have here at BMG, movements in that direction are noticed and objected to. Perhaps the two of you feel that such vigilance is quaint or unnecessary. Some of us disagree.
Perhaps the two of you might explain, point by point, how the NSA surveillance program differs from that pursued by Stasi.
The “security” so many of us seek cannot be obtained by the muzzle of a gun, no matter what caliber, nor by an ever-larger military (whether you call it “police” or “Gestapo”). The claim of “security” has been used by tyrants and dictators for as long as tyrants and dictators have existed.
The Boston Marathon was run for more than a century without the need for turning it into heavily-armed camp. Even given the tragedy of last year, the “cure” is worse than the disease — and accomplishes exactly the goals of the “terrorist”, which is the destruction of yet another expression of freedom.
Suppose that more would-be terrorists lie waiting to target Boston, and suppose that surrounding the parade route with troops and weaponry deters them this year. Has any problem been solved? Aren’t the Fourth of July or First Night gatherings just as likely targets? Why not a Red Sox or Patriots game?
The approach the two of you (methuenprogressive and jconway) advocate results in heavily-armed police at EVERY significant public gathering. It creates an insatiable appetite for “intelligence”, as EVERY organization is infiltrated by government agents. Please tell me how the resulting police state differs from those that have preceded it.
I expect such rubbish from methuenprogressive. I am disappointed to see jconway apparently embracing it.
The best way to avoid comparisons between over-militarized local police forces and the Gestapo is to … wait for it … NOT militarize them.
SomervilleTom says
Not farnkoff
Christopher says
…anything methuenprogressive or jconway saying as interpretable as advocating militarized law enforcement, nor do I think either supports some of what the NSA has been doing. What happened last year may have been overdone, but so I think is your reaction.
methuenprogressive says
You’re squealing like a pig stuck under a gate about something that never happened. Provide us the quote that has so upset your fragile sensibilities.
SomervilleTom says
Here’s the quote:
“It is sad to see BlueMassGroup has devolved into a “cops are Nazis” conspiracy site.”
Sound familiar?
methuenprogressive says
Your flexible relationship with reality is closing in on you.
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment. What “something that never happened” did you mean? I’m pretty sure that thousands of police massed in Watertown a year ago, shot a gazillion rounds into a residential neighborhood at night, missed their target, allowed their target’s vehicle to drive away, and locked down the entire region — and still didn’t get their wounded and unarmed man.
I’m pretty sure that, after an all-clear was issued (and with the perpetrator still at large), launched another fusillade of gunfire — mistaken this time — at a boat and missed their man again.
Which part of this reality do you think I have a “flexible relationship” with?
methuenprogressive says
You put words in my mouth and then argued against what I never said. You were squealing like a pig stuck under a gate about something that never happened.
Tom, if you want to be considered a serious person, learn who the Nazis were. Once you do, you will stop sounding so foolish.
SomervilleTom says
– You enthusiastically support the response to last year’s Marathon bombing
– You insult me when I challenge that response and your support for it
– You apparently support the proposed “increased security” at this year’s event
– Trained and disciplined terrorist operatives, if they exist, are likely to be more effective, harder to detect, and harder to apprehend than the perpetrator’s of last year’s attack
– More government surveillance leads to more leads. Since there are only a handful of actual terrorists in our midst (if any), the statistical certainty is that the overwhelming majority of those “leads” will be false.
– More leads will lead to more publicity that will lead to increased “security” (more personnel, guns, tanks, armor, etc).
– Future episodes like the marathon bombing will happen.
This process is an ever-intensifying spiral. Each time a terrorist event happens, we will become even more militarized. The effect of your attacks on me (and those who, like me, want to stop this insanity) is to reinforce and strengthen the cycle.
The end result is a police state. The world’s experience shows that a police state is more likely to resemble Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany than any other model.
I am very well aware of who the Nazi’s were. I encourage YOU to learn more about who the Germans were who put them in power.
Christopher says
…of the slippery slope logical fallacy I have seen in a long time! Also, I still think you are suggesting methuenprogressive supports things s/he never claimed to support.
SomervilleTom says
In order to be a fallacy, a “slippery slope” argument must imply that each step inevitably follows the preceding one. I made no such claim.
Instead, I asked (quite explicitly, I think — “which part do you challenge?”) which step(s) were in question.
Regarding the strawman complaint, let me pick an example — chosen to be extreme for clarity. Suppose Joe loves cats. Bill, Joe’s neighbor, loves birds. The town where they both live has an ordinance requiring cat owners to place a collar and bell on any cat allowed outside. Suppose Joe proposes to repeal that ordinance, and Bill opposes the repeal. Bill says “Joe, you are working to kill the birds in my garden”. I suggest that there is nothing fallacious in Bill’s statement.
I hope I don’t need to spell out the analogy.
Christopher says
…of an “ever intensifying spiral” where the “end result is a police state”. If that’s not slippery slope I don’t know what is. You must have had some pretty horrible experiences with law enforcement. I can think of exactly one bad interaction with a cop, which I am happy to attribute to one individual having a bad day. Otherwise my own interactions have been generally positive.
SomervilleTom says
I fear you missed the point.
A slippery-slope argument is fallacious ONLY when its steps are falsely claimed to be inevitable. When the steps DO follow, then the slippery-slope argument is quite valid.
Please … which of the steps I describe is, in your view, false? Most specifically, when each incident is responded to by ratcheting up an already intense response, what stops the ratcheting-up process — other than treating EVERY resident as a likely terrorist (which, in my view, is a defining attribute of a police state)?
What role does our fourth-amendment right to protection from unreasonable search have in a state where the false-positive rate of “intelligence” hits approaches 100%?
Do the numbers yourself. Let’s assume, for discussion, that six million people live in MA. Suppose there are three would-be terrorists in Massachusetts. Simple arithmetic shows that the “terrorist rate” in Massachusetts is therefore 3/6,000,000 — about 0.00005%.
The intelligence-gathering process is designed to avoid “false negatives” — if one of those three comes under the microscope, a “false negative” happens if the process says the subject “is not a terrorist”.
Any test that avoids false negatives MUST therefore produce a higher number of false positives — situations where the process says the subject is a terrorist when the subject is not. I imagine that Salim Eddin Barhoum and Yassine Zaime might have something to say about that.
Suppose the false positive rate of the test is as low as 1% (very low!).
That means that of every 1,000 residents examined by the constantly-growing surveillance, 100 of them will be identified as “terrorist”.
The likelihood that one of our three actual terrorists is among that 1,000 is 1,000 x 0.00005 … about 0.05 percent.
That means that essentially ALL of those 1,000 hits will turn out to be false.
What recourse do the 1,000 falsely-accused and innocent state residents have? If, heaven forbid, one of those three are successful and an incident DOES happen, what do you think is the likelihood that those 1,000 innocents will be re-examined FIRST — before every other resident (and before any of the actual terrorists are identified)?
I fear that you’re working so hard to convince yourself that all this must somehow be ok that you are missing the increasingly strong evidence that it is NOT ok.
Some slopes really ARE slippery. We ignore or deny that reality at our peril.
Christopher says
You must argue that each point is wrong as it happens. Prediction does not cut it. Since when do we treat every one as a potential terrorist? I certainly haven’t seen it. You are really starting to sound paranoid. Nothing is inevitable.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
How about the TSA?
How about the people being led out of houses with swat team automatic rifles pointed at their heads like in Watertown?
How about our tax dollars paying foe the all these law enforcement types with big time toys riding around our streets?
How about metal detectors everywhere?
How about the unnecessary hero worship and self-congratulations of law enforcement as part of the propaganda to never question them?
How about the fact that based on specious terrorist threats the government has made a cash economy obsolete? (Remember when you cash checks places?)
The lockdown was inching us further. I suppose “Lockdowns” are suppose to become acceptable and commonplace.
That is what they want.
SomervilleTom says
By your logic, every cascade of predicates is a “slippery slope”. This is clearly not the case.
We treat each citizen as a potential terrorist each time we intercept their private communication. That is what most of us call a Fourth Amendment violation. You apparently disagree.
We already fingerprint every person detained in an investigation, whether or not they are ultimately cleared. Those fingerprints are kept in perpetuity by government authorities. Suspects are matched by comparing their prints with the existing database. Each innocent person whose fingerprints are retained in that database is therefore subject to a false-positive. Government authorities want to pursue the same approach with DNA samples. That approach suffers from the same false-positive problem.
I am confident (I won’t say why) that each match flagged by PRISM and similar government databases is permanently retained and flagged as a “match” in perpetuity, whether or not that individual is cleared at the time of the initial match.
In each of these cases — fingerprints, DNA, and now surveillance — the fact of being “noticed” by government authorities greatly multiplies the likelihood that that individual will be treated as a “potential terrorist” by those same government authorities.
If you think false positives are not inevitable in a program like this, you are sadly mistaken. There is a reason why the law provides a mechanism for each individual to, for example, challenge the information in a negative credit report.
Do you think that Senator Kennedy was a potential terrorist? Are you not even a tiny bit concerned that those of us who are NOT celebrities have no way to discover whether or not our names are on these lists?
Please remember that I did NOT assert that the steps in the sequence I offered were inevitable. I instead asked you (or any other reader) to identify which step does not follow the previous one. So far, you have not done so.
I, frankly, don’t care whether you think I’m “starting to sound paranoid” or not.
Christopher says
If you want to argue we overdo security, fine – I’d probably agree with you in a lot of cases. However, it sounded to me like you were saying next thing you know we’ll be exactly like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia and that’s what I pushed back on. Given that it’s not just a professor, but the texts, etc., I’ll stand by what I learned in a college course on this matter.
kirth says
I am happy for you that you’ve only had one bad interaction with a cop. Perhaps you have heard of the crime “driving while black,” or maybe you think it’s a myth. It is not. My point is that you are using your privileged-young-White-man experience to support a belief that cops almost always act reasonably and respect everyone’s rights. Your experience is not an accurate representation of what large portions of the public already live with. Increasing police power and intrusiveness is going to make everyone’s lives more like theirs (and probably make theirs even worse).
Christopher says
…you give my examples of experience a lot more weight than I ever intend. I did NOT intend to suggest that my experience is universal, only that it exists and that there is another side. I do think they are generally good people trying to do their job, but I also think that those of us who defend people, including cops, have a lot less burden of proof than those accusing. Whether cops or in another context, I always assume the best and most positive slant unless or until presented with evidence, preferably on an individual basis. My philosophy is to always give someone, including cops, the benefit of any doubt.
kirth says
What does “preferably on an individual basis” mean? That you ignore accumulated evidence that many other people are frequently harassed by police, to the point that they expect it? Because you haven’t had that experience, due to your invisible backpack of privilege? I give your examples of experience a lot of weight because it’s what you usually fall back on – “I’ve only had one bad cop interaction;” “none of my friends report that;” “I’m not worried about that.” You may not intend to suggest that your experience is universal, but you often present it as the only evidence to support your argument..
It seems that you don’t even recognize your privileged status, and I do think it leads you to give too much weight to your personal experience. Did you read the Driving While Black link I provided?
SomervilleTom says
So we apparently agree that we “overdo” security, and that the constantly growing databases of government authorities are filled with records of people who are innocent.
Do you also agree that the arsenals of local police forces are constantly growing, and that public events like the Esplanade on the 4th and the Marathon are increasingly accompanied by the display of massive military force?
Since we’ve already agreed (earlier) that the likelihood of catching those three actual terrorists is vanishingly small, do you also agree that when they next choose to attack, that attack will likely succeed?
Perhaps its a bomb at a Patriots or a Red Sox game. What do you think will happen next?
Do you think authorities will say “Oh, this isn’t working, let’s go in a different direction” and dismantle the “security” apparatus? Or do you think they’ll say “we need more …” — more guns, more surveillance, more police, more tanks.
I don’t care what you learned in a book, we’ve all learned a whole lot of things in books and in classes. I want to know what you think will actually happen if three or four people are killed and a two-dozen wounded in a terrorist bomb explosion on Landsdowne Street.
I think the ever-expanding militarization of police and surveillance will continue until WE stop it — if we are able to stop it soon enough.
You may think that’s “paranoid”. I think it’s realistic.
Christopher says
…but that still doesn’t make us a police state on the Nazi/Soviet model. I don’t know that I agree the hypothetical terrorist won’t succeed. We often don’t hear about the successes on the law enforcement side. “Small steps” is exactly how I’m advocating considering the ramifications rather than leaping from a little more security to police state.
Christopher says
…but I don’t think that’s the point. Since we claim to be a reality based blog I would point out that in the real world people’s opinions and perspectives are informed by their experiences. I’m not seriously the only person willing to be honest on that point, am I? What I meant by what you quoted is that one should always start out assuming the best. Anything else is stereotypical. I don’t think it is at all privileged to expect to be treated a certain way; it should be the norm, and if it is my experience than that is neither more nor less valid than yours or someone else’s.
jconway says
First of all we have Bulger backer EB3 writing a barely coherent and poorly spelled rant to start the post, then Tom, whom I usually respect, revert to his 1960s views of police, and a lot of people alleging things about steroids, cops getting off on killing people, and assuming public officials don’t have the balls to call them out.
Bill de Blasio ended stop and frisk on day 1, the President rightly critiqued my hometowns police department over the Gates arrest, and in Chicago we have had vocal politicians regularly critique the cops over police torture and bad shootings. We have a host of problems. The BFD had a drug dealing ring and an MMA fighter somehow drawing disability. Nobody is arguing they are perfect.
I am arguing that a decent chunk of posters here are presuming a conspiracy, presuming corruption, and presuming the FBI allowed the terrorists to get away and cause the Marathon bombing. To me, until we see better evidence, it brings us into Alex Jones territory. Officer Collier wasn’t even buried when Ernie started going down this road which he was rightly suspended for going down, but sadly he has groupies now that can’t find anything positive out of the response to these attacks.
Maybe they don’t know members of the Cambridge and Boston fire and police departments as I do, maybe they didn’t know people who lost limbs in the attacks as I do, maybe they don’t have to live with the fact that the lead bomber was in their yearbook as I do.
But people on this thread are presuming a lot of wild allegations without any evidence and making generalized blanket statements bashing cops one year after this city and the cops inside it went through the worst of it. One year after Officer Collier is buried and not a week after those brave firefighters were buried. Democrats have only begun to undo the damage our coalition suffered amongst working class families, and only recently have critics of poor policies like bad wars or bad policing been able to separate supporting the troops and cops with opposing those policies. I think this is an important discussion but I question the timing and the direction it has taken and the tone many of the posters have.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
I never used the word conspiracy.
It was more like leaving shit loads of booze and drugs where teenagers hangout.
No need to tell them about it. Just sit back and watch.
Likewise the FBI’s release of the pics.
But anyway, j’it’s about me’ conway gives carte blanche to break the rules because worldly j “know(s) members of the Cambridge and Boston fire and police departments” , and, (get this)
“maybe they don’t have to live with the fact that the lead bomber was in their yearbook as (he)does.
merrimackguy says
likes to put words in other people’s mouths.
It’s a problem with youth today.
kirth says
It used to be, when cops did their jobs in proper fashion, they were heroic first responders, and when they screwed up or brutalized innocent people, they were just ordinary guys trying to do a difficult job.
Now it appears that they can stage an enormous, highly-publicized fiasco impacting the lives of thousands of people, and still be heroes. I’m in awe.
jconway says
I address Chicago police torture, the end of stop and frisk, and as to Tom I strongly am against the NSA actions and expanded police state since the Patriot Act. I am against militarizing police and have said so repeatedly on this very blog.
What I am not in favor of, is using an anniversary like this to disparage the actual individuals involved in capturing the bombers simply because they happen to be cops. Had the bomber slipped away do you know how badly that would’ve damaged the credibility of this state and it’s law enforcement? Remember we dropped the ball on stopping the 9.11 hijackers at Logan.
There is a middle ground between calling all cops fascist pigs-which seems to be what many of you are doing-and calling them all equally heroes and silencing dissent. The latter is something I am not advocating for.
I am specifically saying I don’t see what Mayor Menino, Commissioner Davis, or Governor Patrick-who all received universal praise everywhere but here it seems-would have done differently to handle the disaster. The fact that so few lives were lost has everything to do with our preparedness, both the police and first responders and also our superior medical infrastructure. The fact that we were able to catch them so quickly has everything to do with the work of our law enforcement, and we can complain about bullets hitting boats all we want, but there was no collateral damage and the suspect was captured alive.
Not mirandizing him, the conduct of the trial, seeking the death penalty-all stuff we can legitimately criticize. I just don’t see what is gained by the critiquing law enforcement for actually protecting the public and enforcing the law. What is the alternative? Pretending the bombing didn’t happen and insisting we move on without apprehending those responsible or securing the area? I am just not getting what about these specific responses was so objectionable from a policy standpoint. If we could stick to that it’s a conversation I could actually learn from.
jconway says
I’ve been on both sides of this. A co-worker’s husband is a Chicago cop and had to deal with the protestors during the NATO summit-some of whom were clearly peaceful and some of whom intentionally wanted to beef with the cops. He got banged up pretty good. From that same job another co-worker, now a business school student, got pushed against a wall with a gun drawn to his face since he was mistaken for another black youth in the mostly white neighborhood he lives in. I fear for him and think about that everyday.
My mother was mistaken for another person with the same name by the FBI and had to get her landlord and my grandparents to vouch that she was in fact who she said she was before they’d leave her alone. The informant controversy is a very real and problematic one, not just with Whitey but in all sorts of cases. We don’t even need to get into Hoover going after lefties, gays and blacks during his tenure.
But to me the bombings illustrate what the realistic threats are, not made up weapons in Iraq but home made stuff, and people capable of carrying it out. We have done next to nothing to stop the next mass shooting which is far more likely than an event like this, and you don’t need to tell me this story would be different if the perpetrators were white rather than brown or Muslim. There is always a balance and we have to make sure we aren’t sacrificing too much liberty for security, but we also can’t sit idle while actual threats are occurring in our city. This was an actual threat from individuals who wanted to kill a large number of people, and I know people that knew them, and they don’t know why they snapped. But snapped they did, and I for one don’t think the FBI was behind it in some kind of manchurian candidate plot to lock down the city and play with their toys. The first responders made sure most of the victims survived, and law enforcement caught the perpetrators with minimal casualties and no collateral ones. I don’t see how it could’ve been done differently and ended as successfully.
SomervilleTom says
Sorry, but I think I’m reverting to my 2013 views of Boston-area police. No police force that I encountered in the 1960s conducted anything remotely comparable to the excesses of a year ago.
Here are some things that could have happened, and didn’t:
– Area authorities and the race organizers could have, after acknowledging last year’s tragedy, announced that the marathon would take place this year with minimal externally-visible changes. Needed changes could have been made privately, without publicity, and with rather more focus on effectiveness and rather less on the appearance of effectiveness.
– A police spokesman and race organizer could have held a joint presser and announced that the traditions and freedoms always associated with the Boston Marathon will not be sacrificed by the criminal behavior of two disturbed young men. Instead the organizers cite “security concerns” in banning “bandits”, a tradition nearly as old as the Marathon.
– The Boston Globe could have spent the preceding year writing about the training, practice, and discipline of this year’s race. We could have seen story after story emphasizing the courage of runners and organizers refusing to be cowed by two amateur terrorists. Instead we see a relentless barrage of voyeuristic pieces that have the writers and audience wallowing in victimhood such as today’s front-page embarrassment. The Globe could have let the Richard family grieve in peace and privacy, while helping the region heal and move on.
– We could have seen a full and transparent investigation of how last year’s events went wrong, as well as what they did right.
– We could have had a succession of press conferences where police and law enforcement officials describe the changes they plan so that when events like this happen, the response is more effective and less disruptive.
– We could have had a series of press conferences where Governor Patrick and MBTA officials describe changes at the T so that the expensive communications systems, expensively-trained T police, expensive new signage, and so on can be used during emergencies like this rather than shut down along with the rest of the system.
– We could have had a police guard of Ibragim Todashev that prevented his murder by FBI agents.
– We could have had an AG’s office who aggressively pursued the question of why and how Mr. Todashev was killed.
– We could have had a media that devoted as much attention to the name, background, connections, personnel record, and similar information for the shooter that executed Mr. Todashev as they have shown towards Mr. Todashev himself.
– We could have had a culture where the public is as informed about the perpetrators, circumstances, and backgrounds of POLICE shooters as we are about common criminals — including Mr. Todashev and the Tsarnaev brothers. Who started firing at the boat? Why did they continue? Who or what were they firing at? What disciplinary measures were brought against this fusillade in a residential neighborhood AFTER an “all clear” was issued? If any of us stood in a neighborhood and started shooting, would we escape charges? Why do we tolerate this behavior from our police?
All these are things that could have happened in the last year, and did not. I am, frankly, sick to death of the never-ending Kibuki Theater approach to “security”. It doesn’t work, and it only perpetuates an ever-intensifying spiral of militarization, assaults on civil liberties, and government violence.
howlandlewnatick says
On target to get an award from POTUS next month, I only saw the news report in the NY Daily News of all places.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. — Mark Twain
methuenprogressive says
I heard it first from a friend, then read about him in this morning’s Eagle Tribune.
jconway says
I really appreciate that you took the time to answer my question of what you would have done differently and it is clear you put a lot more thought into these issues than I gave you credit for initially, and I apologize to you specifically for the tinfoil links from earlier.
I also wholeheartedly agree with your first six points. The marathon shouldn’t change, we should look into what went wrong that day, the Globes coverage should be better and more affirmative rather than victimized, and press conferences and public investigations into the failed T systems and response and revealing that information would both improve the system and inform the public. I am all for the first six.
The last four you jump to conclusions that evidence, at least as far as I’m aware of, do not currently justify. I am open to convincing, but I need to see links from reputable sources for what is, you have to agree, an extraordinary claim and allegation that would require sufficient evidence to prove.
SomervilleTom says
I appreciate your sincerity and accept your apology — thank you.
I agree that my last four points are extraordinary claims. So were the allegations about the FBI/Bulger conspiracy while that was happening.
This is the classic who-will-guard-the-guards dilemma. I think we saw the same thing in the runup to the 2003 Iraq invasion — we had no evidence of deceit from the Bush administration, and the same party controlled our access to the investigations that would confirm or deny the information being reported by the Bush administration. It was only because a Democratic House and Senate allowed the investigations to proceed that we learned just how empty that information was.
I have some (though faint) hope that a new AG will shed more light on the substance or absence of substance in the ongoing investigation of what happened in Florida and what was really going on between the FBI and the Tsarnaev brothers. There is a familiar pattern of “disconnects” between, for example, Russian authorities and the (national) FBI that is troublesome given the history and culture of the FBI.
I wonder how reasonable people can go about finding the right balance between overwrought paranoia in such matters and realistic recognition of past corruption and conspiracies. For me at least, the wholesale abuse and shredding of our privacy, together with the pervasive dishonesty regarding it, makes that balance harder to strike.
This is even more pronounced for me, locally, because of the enthusiasm with which our current AG (and gubernatorial candidate) has embraced the expansion of government surveillance.
I do sincerely appreciate your response, and I’m glad that we’re able to discuss these extraordinarily volatile matters while maintaining our mutual respect.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
n/t
JimC says
Can we drop the “Ernie defends Whitey!” motif? He doesn’t. He raised questions about the case.
Not everyone who visits reads every word. Those who have said it know they’re tweaking (twerking?) EBII, but no one here has ever defended Whitey and probably never will.
scout says
He does defend Whitey, and seeks to minimize his many evils at every opportunity. Yes, sometimes these efforts are entwined in questions about the case though- unfortunately this Whitey defending agenda does undermine those legit questions.
JimC says
n/t
scout says
Please don’t make me go back through this stuff. But, I will in a separate post if you really want.
In short, consistently smearing Whitey’s victims- as if that changes anything. Consistently accentuating the evils of Whitey’s colleagues, while always dismissing things Whitey undeniably did with the formulation- “Oh, of course he was a gangster, he did gangster stuff. NBD” Always insisting that Whitely girlfriend is a snow white innocent, whose only crime was falling for the wrong man, and whom Whitey is chivalrously trying to protect from the evil feds. When, as someone who has followed the coverage in depth, he knows that she gave Whitey friggin dental pliers as a gift…pliers he then used to yank out peoples teeth in. You know, just a totally normal gift between a couple…paper, wood, silver, gold, dental pliers, is I think how it usually goes.
If you genuinely don’t see the not so hidden agenda here (not this post, but in the record), and are interested, I can lay it out in depth in a future post in the next week or two.
JimC says
My take: Whitey’s guilt is so transparent, and he so vile, that restating what he’s done is redundant. So Ernie focuses on other issues.
But, guessing Ernie’s intention is tricky business.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Now don’t confuse the ridiculousness the evidence against Whitey for the murders of Callahan, Wheeler, and the two women. Whitey was a bad man. But the feds never told us the truth about.
Hitler never invaded Australia. If someone says he did and I argue he didn’t that doesn’t make me a Hitler apologists.