Mayor Michael Bloomberg appears to be moving beyond dictating what people can drink and eat in his city despite judicial rulings finding his policies in violation of the Constitution. Bloomberg joined the Pavlovian response of politicians this week in calling for a reduction in civil liberties in response to the Boston Marathon bombing. Bloomberg warned citizens that the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.
Bloomberg warned that “The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. 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.”
It is statements like this that show a fundamental lack of understanding of our constitutional history and values. It borders on constitutional defamation. We have a Constitution that has survived pressures that could have reduced many systems to a fine dust from depression to social strife. Yet, two brothers plant make-shift bombs built from pressure cookers and Bloomberg wants to take a cleaver to the Constitution. Exactly what part of the Constitution does Bloomberg want to reduce like an over-sized soda? Privacy? The warrant clause?
Bloomberg however feels that the Constitution is not the object that we are fighting to protect but the very thing that is endangering us: “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. We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to.”
Bloomberg is of course calling for such changes before we even analyze this attack. His call for more cameras ignores that fact that this attack would not have been avoided with such measures and occurred in one of the most heavily surveilled areas of Boston — a point discussed in an earlier column.
While it is politicians like Bloomberg who are endangering our rights, he prefers to blame his proposed actions on the terrorists: “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.” How exactly are the terrorists “putting us in a situation where we can’t” protect ourselves unless Bloomberg is including the Framers among the terrorists.
It appears that, yet again, privacy will be the right to bear the brunt of political responses to the bombing. Bloomberg was quick to say religion must be protected while calling for increased government surveillance of citizens: “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.”
No, Mr. Mayor, what the terrorist want us to do is to cause self-inflicted wounds like ripping down our constitutional laws and traditions. They want to show that we are hypocrites. That is the point of terror — to trigger a bigger response to the bombing out of fear and hate. Bloomberg responded perfectly on cue in calling for the expansion of the already burgeoning security state.
We are truly living in dangerous times but the greatest threat can be found in men like Bloomberg who fit the description perfectly of Louis Brandeis: ““The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
Source: Politicker
G.Mason: It is so cute that you think you could prevail against the full force of the US Government with the weapons available to you. They have already declared war on the Constitution, and have seen no “response” from the the people.
I doubt they will ever confiscate guns, they are all about the money, dude, and they have their own fortresses (and armed guards) to protect them against most gun violence. But if they ever do decide to confiscate guns, they aren’t stupid, they will do it with an overwhelming force of police and national guard already radicalized to see any gun as a danger. Anybody refusing to comply will be an automatic criminal, and the few holdouts that love guns would be slaughtered by helicopter gunships while standing their ground with their popguns.
I own guns, but the vast majority of people that I know that DO own guns would certainly not fight to the death to keep them should they become illegal; they wouldn’t even risk going to prison. They own guns to protect them against actual criminals, not out of some fantasy of protecting themselves against their own government.
Bloomberg probably thinks that we need more databases and watchlists, too.
“The TIDE database is one of many federal security databases set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”
TIDE = “Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment”
TIDE. Because there’s an ocean of terrorists?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/tamerlan-tsarnaev-boston-
bombing-govt-watch-list_n_3143866.html?ref=topbar
Excerpts:
The sources said Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s details were entered into TIDE, a database maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center…
The FBI found nothing to suggest he was an active threat, but all the same placed his name on the “Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment” list. The FBI has not said what it did find about Tsarnaev.
But the database, which holds more than half a million names, is only a repository of information on people who U.S. authorities see as known, suspected or potential terrorists from around the world.
Because of its huge size, U.S. investigators do not routinely monitor everyone registered there, said U.S. officials familiar with the database.
As of 2008, TIDE contained more than 540,000 names, although they represented about 450,000 actual people, because some of the entries are aliases or different name spellings for the same person. Fewer than 5 percent of the TIDE entries were U.S. citizens or legal residents, according to a description of the database on the NCTC website.
TIDE AND OTHER DATABASES
The TIDE database is one of many federal security databases set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The database system has been criticized in the past for being too cumbersome, especially in light of an attempted attack on a plane in 2009. Intelligence and security agencies acknowledged in Congress that they had missed clues to the Detroit “underpants bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Officials said after the incident that he had been listed in the TIDE database.
Republican Senator Susan Collins said there were problems in sharing information ahead of the Boston bombings, too.
“This is troubling to me that this many years after the attacks on our country in 2001 that we still seem to have stovepipes that prevent information from being shared effectively,” she said. Collins was speaking after the FBI gave a closed-door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, but she did not elaborate.
…
Tsarnaev was not put on the “no-fly” list that would have banned him from boarding an airplane in the United States. Neither was he named on the Selectee List, which would have required him to be given extra security screening at airports.
Another list, the Terrorist Screening Database, is a declassified version of the highly classified TIDE with fewer details about terrorist suspects. One source said Tsarnaev was on this list, too.
After being put in the TIDE system, his name was entered in another database, this one maintained by the Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection bureau which is used to screen people crossing U.S. land borders and entering at airports or by sea.
End of excerpts
I agree with bettykath except that I would add that here we sit broken hearted tried to poop but only farted. Lets get up and Occupy Bloomberg’s Office.
With CISPA, surveillance cameras and the drones of all sizes, we no longer have privacy. The government is already positioned to totally quash any revolution. It has the means to legally monitor all communications and the fire power to wipe us all out. They’ve demonstrated many times that “collateral damage”, i.e. innocents, just don’t matter. The terrorists I fear sit in political capitals ignoring the rights of the citizens.
Anyone of any descent can desend to Nazi. Hitler was part jewish. Curley from the Three Stooges would say: ” Hotsie Totsie, I smell a Nazi” Then he would say: “Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, Yuk.”
Bloomberg is beyond the Pale. That means The Paletinate for those of you without a geographical and historical reference. So, it means that they would kick him out of Israel. I have a difficult time listening to some schmuck who speaks the Turdy, turd and a turd lingo. He needs a large gulp diet cola enema. He is an enemy of the people.
Raff,
Do you really think so? I think it’s the mouse getting in the house approach…. Just for instance, how many constructional rights have been thrown willing under the rug just because of fear induced panic by our government….. In the name to fight terrorism…. You know, some folks consider drone attacks outside the US fine and dandy…. But when you bring em here that’s a different story….. See any 4th amendment violations….. See any similarities to the drones and standing army’s prohibited by the construction of the Constitution…..
You are entitled to your views that its profit motivated…. While, I will agree that it’s driving up the sales…. I read where even the mfg never dreamed that sales would be out 2.5 years….. Because if demand and prepayment…. But, I see it more basic than this…..
Bloomberg is a threat to our Bill of Rights. He is a Fascist. Our country is becoming overrun with them.
The day they declare confiscation is the day they have declared war on the Constitution and will see a response in kind from the people.
Our country is quickly heading towards a Revolution. Revolution and not Dicatatorship, because far too many people are not going to hand over the guns and lay down.
AY,
The core complaint of the NRA is to complain on anything, in order to stoke fear and drive gun sales. That is their only intent in anything they do or say.
Well stated Jonathan…..
I think this goes to the very core of folks opposed to more regulation by the government in the name of OUR safety…..
This is in essence the core complaint of the NRA…. and on that note, even though I am not a member, nor do I care to become is the reason I support NO MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION in our lives…..
People are always ready to jump on whats politically expedient….NOT what right….
Just like I have seen in the legislature….If you vote against more funding for the WAR machine…..You are in support of Terrorism….. If you vote against funding for the Police….You are soft on crime…..
These people with money and want to be power scare the hell out of me….
Bloomberg is right. Safety is more important than liberty.
Surely, since the more political and civil power any particular actor enjoys, the more potentially dangerous that actor is to the general safety?
It follows that someone with Bloomberg’s power must be monitored at all times and should voluntarily surrender any expectation of privacy in his personal or public life. I’m not even sure it is good strategy to allow such a powerful public figure to have any so-called private life at all considering the danger to society.
EastBroadway: I’m positive… many of the victims would disagree with you!
Yeah, I suppose many victims would take some satisfaction in exacting revenge and calling it “justice,” that is human nature.
That wasn’t YOUR contention, however, your contention is that the terrorists would be terrorized by seeing somebody painfully executed on TV, and that would reduce their propensity toward terrorism. You could not be further from the truth if you tried.
Paul,
Advocating for change to the Constitution is not the same as “failing to uphold.” Anyone can advocate for anything, that’s the way politics works. On the other hand violating constitutional rights is not acceptable; however, that has not stopped many elected officials from the President on down from actually doing things that should have gotten them indicted for war crimes.
Gerald Ford sat a dangerous precedent when he pardoned Richard Nixon.
If an elected official calls for changing our constitution, can they be impeached for not upholding our constitution?
“We are truly living in dangerous times but the greatest threat can be found in men like Bloomberg who fit the description perfectly of Louis Brandeis: ““The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.””
A quote that should be taught every year in school from 1st through 12th grade.
Mr. Bloomberg is trying to make it easier for Anthony Weiner to become the next mayor of NYC.
Isn’t betraying the constitution you are sworn to uphold and protect treason?
“We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.”
Project much?
Tony C. I’m positive… many of the victims would disagree with you!
I expect nothing less from the mayor of the city where the fourth amendment is dead if you don’t have white skin.
IMichael Bloomberg takes no salary as Mayor. When somebody gives you something for nothing, nothing is exactly what you get. Crazy people think they are OK and everyone else has a problem.
EastBroadway: Give him a very speedy trial, then subject him to the most exruciating type of execution, broadcast live on every TV in America
You fail to understand that what would deter you does not deter a person desperate enough to become terrorist. Those that embrace dying for a cause are not deterred by punishment. The hijackers that took aircraft into the World Trade center knew they would die and did their deed anyway. A suicide bomber knows they will die and they do their deed anyway. Why in the world would somebody truly ready to die for a cause be deterred by seeing one of their fellow terrorists executed, even horrifically?
For a terrorist watching your broadcast their mindset will be, “That man is a brave hero, and we should be not fearful but inspired, people need to understand what we will not just endure, but embrace, to achieve justice.”
Is that what you hope to accomplish?