Inside the Military-Police Center That Spies On Baltimore's Rioters

Lasrick writes: Adam Weinstein on a program designed to catch terrorists attacking Baltimore that is now being used to spy on protesters: 'On Ambassador Road, just off I-695 around the corner from the FBI, nearly 100 employees sit in a high-tech suite and wait for terrorists to attack Baltimore. They've waited 11 years. But they still have plenty of work to do, like using the intel community's toys to target this week's street protests.' Great read.

Comments

Motive

[__aabppq7737]

Protesters can be peaceful or aggressive.

Re:Motive

[FooAtWFU]

Yeah... If anything this is a better justification than they had before. There were looters running through stores, rioters burning down buildings, and the one guy even puncturing the fire hose when the fire department tried to put the flames out. There is a much more credible, obvious, proximate threat to life and property than there would be with some shadowy nonspecific radical-jihadist plot. Things were literally on fire, people.

Re:Motive

[ScentCone]

There is a much more credible, obvious, proximate threat to life and property than there would be with some shadowy nonspecific radical-jihadist plot. Things were literally on fire, people.

A few thousand reduced-to-ashes New Yorkers might, if they were alive, argue with your dismissal of their deaths at the hands of radical jihaddis as being non-proximate, and shadowy. They are indeed quite literally dead. Multiple very non-shadowy attempts (some very successful) by the same and related groups to kill other people, in large numbers, have also happened since then.

Re:Motive

[Fwipp]

Property? They probably caused a few hundred thousand dollars in damages; I think 9/11 clocked in at around... oh you know, maybe fifty billion. No biggie.

Life? Zero people are dead because of these riots. Wish I could say the same was true for people killed by cops. Or on 9/11.

Re:Motive

[squiggleslash]

Yeah I thought the summary's equation of "Protestors" and "Rioters" (headline uses the latter, main text the former, apparently referring to the same people - for the record, the number of protestors in Baltimore last week was some figure conservatively estimated in the tens of thousands; the number of rioters was less than 2,000 - probably much less, being made up largely of local gangs) was rather reflective of the kneejerk reaction against any politicial activity by "the masses" in this country.

The other day I mentioned the (thankfully debunked) neo-urban-legend about a nearby Florida sheriff saying it was OK to run over protestors if they get in your way to some people in the office. At least one was fully in favor, giving a whoop when he heard it.

I was brought up in the UK, moving to the US when I was 25. The idea of treating political protests as something horrific astounds me, it's normal activity over there, you'd expect it to be accepted and supported in the country that invented the first amendment. But apparently not.

Re: Motive

[Noah Haders]

Please tell me what these Islamist terrorists are doing. There was shoe bomber, whose comical attempt to light his shoe on fire like wiley coyote was stopped by passenger. underwear bomber who did the same thing. the boston marathon guys were not aligned with a particular terrorist group like AQAP or ISIS, just touched in the head. where are all the boogeymen in the closet?

Re:Motive

[Cyberax]

They were not reduced to ashes, but rather oxidized. And no, that was a one-off event and all the security measures have failed to prevent any similar attack.

Re:Motive

[volmtech]

You did watch the Rodny King riots. Do you remember the white guy that was dragged from his truck and a protester smashed a concrete block onto his head and then danced a jig around the severely injured man?

Re:Motive

[Anonymous Coward]

I was brought up in the UK, moving to the US when I was 25. The idea of treating political protests as something horrific astounds me, it's normal activity over there, you'd expect it to be accepted and supported in the country that invented the first amendment. But apparently not.

You are forgetting that the US Government considers the Constitution to be "enemy number one" and have been removing parts they don't like for the last forty years or so. In Baltimore's case it all boils down to dollars.They have dozens of unsolved murders every year and it is no big deal, but evasion of tax stamps on cigarettes is considered a "major crime" worth the budget of these quasi-legal surveillance centers.

Why is it that whenever one of these police agencies gets caught running a license plate scanner, they always say it is for reducing crime like stolen cars, but when you ask them how many stolen cars were recovered as a direct result of the scanners the answer is always zero?

Re:Motive

[pnutjam]

You did watch the Rodny King riots. Do you remember the white guy that was dragged from his truck and a rioter smashed a concrete block onto his head and then danced a jig around the severely injured man?
FTFY

The two are not interchangeable.

Re:Motive

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you don't, as his name was Reginald Denny.
Just like you probably don't remember the other protesters who came to his aid.
Or that Denny forgave at least of the attackers who later apologized.

They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[rsilvergun]

Pretty much ignoring the law in the process. 9/11 really, really screwed America. It's amazing how little it takes the scare the $h!t out of enough of us to throw everything away. So many folks I knew went on and on about ho 9/11 changed everything, but it didn't really. We let it change after the fact, but there was no good reason why we had to let everything go to hell...

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right about everything, except that it was just the events of 9/11. It started years before that. The government goons had an agenda and used the catastrophe to push it through quicker and easier than before.

What's that quote? "Never let a good crisis go to waste"?

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[memnock]

It amazes me that protesters can be watched like terrorist suspects and "cases built against them". Yet these nazis don't do a damn thing about the corporate execs who have caused way more trouble for thousands of people all over the country.

The license plate reader image from the article shows a category for "other" along with "tax scofflaw". "Other" says nothing but fishing expedition to me. Unbelievable.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that they can do this isn't strange. The power base of the country gets a little uncomfortable when the rank-and-file decides they've had enough and start throwing temper tantrums. I'm not surprised they start bringing out laser guns, rail guns, the time machine, the panopticon, heck even a deathstar or two if they can put them together...just to put everyone back in their place. I expect them to do that.

What I don't expect them to do is manipulate people and the law. It's well known that police sometimes 'create' rioters and inject them into crowds to incite violence. Once the police can create a violent situation they give themselves license to use their laser guns and deathstars to start charring bodies. The problem is proving that happens. If we could ever prove that then we know we're right in what we're doing. ...except righteousness won't help you in a hail of bullets, shells and microwave radiation.

Re: They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

it can be argued they did it as a false flag from the beginning. house of bush house of saud.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[meerling]

I don't know about you, but I did what I could to stop what I knew was coming.
Didn't do a damn bit of good, other than there being a record that these results were foreseen.

Like usual, it's not a question of "If it can be abused?", but rather "When will it be abused?".

Re: They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

if the coppers break a suspects spine, there is really no need.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

more apt is power not used is power lost!

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[HiThere]

There may, indeed, have been some people who were sufficiently scared by 9/11 to think that the change in laws was desireable, but I've never met one. There certainly weren't enough to get the laws changed in less than a month. But certain people in power saw an opportunity and used it, and it MUCH harder to get a law repealed.

I don't think the country, as in most of the people living there, was ever in favor of the draconian and unconstitutional changes in the law. That doesn't much matter when both major parties are in favor of increasing the centralization of power (no matter what they say...watch what they *do*, and remember they are always willing to lie to you).

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[YrWrstNtmr]

This started looong before 9/11. The riots of 1967-68, for instance. It's just now, they/we have the tech to take it up a notch.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

True, stuff fell apart with the end of WW-II, but we were in the habit of occupying foreign land and creating mass genocide since the birth of America.

Re: They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[MobSwatter]

[i]it can be argued they did it as a false flag from the beginning. house of bush house of saud.[/i]

It could be, but what could that possibly do at this point to stop the momentum in the direction this country went in 60 years ago? The process of collapse of this country started with things that were done back in the 50's, it has only become an exponential problem since. Pretty obvious that political treaties do not apply to civil unrest.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[sumdumass]

And it appears lieing and misconstruing facts to someone's advantage is still in practice.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly, this authoritarian undercurrent has been present in the US since the end of the second world war. It may be relatively recently that it's taken on a high-technological bend, but the rabble in the US has been afraid of the "other" practically forever.

It wasn't so long ago that the powers that be were hyping the threat of the Communist Menace, bullying the gullible into believing that the Reds were literally everywhere, trying desperately to undermine our God-given Democracy and abrogate our precious bodily fluids. The modern "War on Terror" is little more than a ploy by the Cold Warriors cast adrift by the end of the Cold War to capitalize on the anxiousness of the common man. The godless Communists were defeated by the heroics of Presidents past, now we have to be ever vigilant for the excesses of the Hyper-godly Islamic Terrorists, every one of which want's to deprive us of our "God Given Liberties" and behead us all with their flaming sword of Islamic Justice.

By jove, it it weren't for the gallant efforts of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ and the rest of the Armed Forces, we'd all be praying to Allah and suffering under the yoke of Sharia law. If it weren't for patriots like those at the Godly "Three Letter Agencies" keeping vigilant watch in Baltimore and across the country, we'd be overwhelmed by the Islamic Hordes, forced to worship a false God and anyone who believe different would be brutally murdered in the streets.

I mean just look at the glorious Democracy we left behind in Iraq. It's been undermined by the Satanic vitriol of Islamic Fundamentalists, and if we don't send more American boys to die there we'll surely be swept asunder by the rising tide of the Islamic State.

What this world needs is to be overseen by the Brave Patriots of the US armed forces, and all dissidence to be stamped out by the Virtuous US Military. If we kill all the Islamists, who would be left to question the Hegemony of the USA?

No-one, thats who.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[DocHoncho]

You silly, misguided plebe. Those brave Corporate execs are the Job Creators that give your miserable existence and modicum of meaning. The malfeasance of the banking industry created some jobs, and therefore was right. The calculus is simple, Jobs Created > Public Harm. That's all Real Americans care about anyway, none of this prattle about Rights or Justice or any other Liberal twaddle.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[DocHoncho]

And it appears lieing and misconstruing facts to someone's advantage is still in practice.

Because the Trail of Tears and other atrocities against "Native Americans" never happened.

Wrong or right, there were atrocities committed by the American government against Native peoples. Perhaps those acts were supported by a majority of the population. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

... how little it takes to scare ...

That's 'National security 101' as explained by J Goebbels. This is the mind-set torture is really meant to instil: Tell people what they want to hear and the victim will be safe. Frequently the torturer doesn't know what the truth should be and the victim is relentlessly assaulted. Now the assault has the form of the war on terror versus the common people.

... how 9/11 changed everything, but it didn't really

Yes it did: The US military realized their enemy was no longer some illiterate rice farmers in a foreign country taking arms to fight against the local corrupt government. It was any bunch of foreigners taking arms to fight Americans for ignoring the US-funded corruption happening in their part of the world. So all people stopped being the victims and became the criminals. It's easy to justify with 'national security', 'tough on crime' and a war on drugs/terror/IP pirates/pedophiles. The US passed most of the "guilty until proven innocent" laws in the 1980s so half the work was done before the 'national security' and war on terror excuses arrived.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[sumdumass]

We look at them now as atrocities but at the time, it was not. You specifically brought up the trail of tears and that shows a lot of restraint considering the norm of the time and even biblical reference which describe complete annihilation and enslavement which would have been easy to do.

But go ahead and look at everything from what you think you know today. I bet your dad even raped your mom a couple of times too- because she wasn't really into it when he was. That's what changing definitions midstream does and you are part of the problem.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, I have met some. Their support is an emotional one - "I was in NYC when it happened - I walked across the bridge in fear that day - whatever it takes, torture terrorists, bomb 'them', whatever it takes. If your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear."

Re: They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiping out almost all of the natives wasn't a problem? It was a problem then and a problem now.

Re: They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[sumdumass]

Yes, in a war, when one side fights against the other side, people die. Were is the problem outside war existing? As I already said, there was huge amounts of restraint employed compared to normal business as usual for war at or near the time.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[memnock]

I understand that you're being facetious, but unfortunately, that doesn't even seem to hold a phantom truth. I seem to hear as much about jobs that pay a livable wage being cut as I hear about job creation. That's the pony show they trot out every time they are attacked, but it's really starting to be a facade. Especially considering that real wages have dropped over the last couple of decades.

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[RockDoctor]

The license plate reader image from the article shows a category for "other" along with "tax scofflaw". "Other" says nothing but fishing expedition to me. Unbelievable.

I noticed that too. Not being an American, what is a "scofflaw"? Is it an execution offence?

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[pnutjam]

Around here the government likes to create a "redevelopment commission". They try to steal employers from neighboring communities under the guise of job creation. They do this by handing out tax incentives, so it spreads the damage to both the communities getting the jobs, and the communities losing the jobs. Never mind the type of management that jumps on these "opportunities".

What really chaps my ass is the low quality of the jobs they attract. They will spend gobs of money and trumpet 100 jobs coming to an area (hell, they'll trumpet 3 new jobs if they get the chance). Meanwhile, these jobs are $12 /hour, permatemp style jobs.

They also rebuff any attempts at transparency whenever anyone tries to find out how they are spending taxpayer funds. Since they are a separate entity from the government that spawned them, they claim they aren't beholden to the tax payers and don't fall under FOI requests, etc.

It's sick!

Re:They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[pnutjam]

In Tex-ass, yes.

Re: They did this with Occupy Wall Street

[pnutjam]

Bullshit. There were plenty of people speaking out against it, and plenty of people trying to stop it. They just weren't in the right place to do anything about it.
The Supreme Court would have stopped the Trail of Tears. That part of American history is directly responsible for the existence of the US Marshall Service.

There are plenty of parallels to our treatment of Native Americans historically and our treatment of the poor today. It's just harder to resettle and eliminate the poor.

"If you have nothing to hide..."

[atfrase]

This is a perfect illustration of why the "if you have nothing to hide" argument in favor of government spying is so short-sighted. Yes, they always *say* that they will only use such powers of surveillance against foreign enemies and terrorists and child molesters and so on. But once they have such power, they will *inevitably* start using it against American citizens who are engaged in the Constitutionally protected activity of criticizing their government.

Anyone who has ever argued in favor of government spy powers needs to think long and hard about what kind of country we're becoming as a result of those powers, and whether we really want to be that kind of country.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Well let's be clear, because the government is not a monolithic entity. There are plenty of government people who actually do things that are quite useful. What we're dealing with here is LAW ENFORCEMENT overreaching and power grabbing, like they always do and always have done. Want to cut their budget? They'll actually go on the news and lobby against their own bosses (elected officials and, ultimately, the people) in order to get their way.

Succeed in cutting their budget? Well then the very next time something happens that might in somebody's imagination have been prevented by whatever it is you cut, some "retired law enforcement official" and/or "retired military officer" (they're almost interchangeable now) will appear on the talking head shows talking about how soft on whatever everybody's being.

At a more local level, if in this day of it being totally possible to unintentionally commit multiple felonies just getting to work, people manage to actually comply with the law but do things they don't like, they'll be right up there in front of whatever legislative body is appropriate trying to get things progressively made illegal or deserving of extra time in jail, whatever. Why it is that law enforcers are permitted to have ANY say in what should and should not be illegal still astounds me. I'm speaking of as official groups of course, not as private citizens. It should be absolutely illegal for police, FBI, whatever to express ANY public opinion as the position of their agency on what laws should be passed or, in the case of drug prohibition for instance, repealed. That kind of restriction would go a long way towards undoing the massive power grab they've been on, and silencing the whining that happens every time anybody wants to hold them accountable for absolutely anything.

We need to do what's never been popular in some quarters of this nation: reign in law enforcement. Immediately. Now.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

using it against American citizens who are engaged in the Constitutionally protected activity of criticizing their government.

Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason. The minute a protester starts doing any of those things they are no longer protesters and are now thugs and vandals. Sorry but the "we are so mad we can't control ourselves" is just a cop out.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

they were rather moderate, given they did not break a coppers spine.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason.

Maybe not by the US Constitution(I consider the oversight a deficiency myself), but 35 State Constitutions do recognize it.

Massachusetts's starts with a section that ends with:

"and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."

followed by:

Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.

New Hampshire has:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Tennessee:

Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish,
and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

And why not Maryland:

Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

So there's a few, I could look for more states, or even other countries, but I think that's enough to establish that "no matter what the reason" may not be entirely as you may belief.

Or do you think that it won't ever be necessary to assault persons abusing state authority, or destroy public property(including setting it on fire), to achieve a given end?

And please don't quibble over the meaning of your offenses, you might as well say if I were to bring up cases of justifiable homicide that that's not what you meant when talking about murder not being acceptable while listing a string of ways to kill someone.

Sorry but the "we are so mad we can't control ourselves" is just a cop out.

Yes, Cops use that excuse. That means they can say "We were so afraid we can't control ourselves, we had to use violence too" and whatever else works to justify their own acts.

Sorry, but if you're going to demand non-aggression, cut it both ways or not at all.

 

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but in this case the founding fathers would expect you to have a spine (assuming it isn't broken) and break whatever laws are necessary to bring the government back under control.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they always *say* that they will only use such powers of surveillance against foreign enemies and terrorists and child molesters and so on. But once they have such power, they will *inevitably* start using it against American citizens who are engaged in the Constitutionally protected activity of criticizing their government.

Not disagreeing with you, but even in YOUR post it sounds like terrorists (even US-born) or child molesters have already been removed from the consideration as "American citizens".

And that is a bigger problem than the inevitable abuse of the new powers that you mention.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[whistlingtony]

They may be vandals and thugs as you say, although I'd dispute you on that. They certainly aren't terrorists, and using a program to catch non existent terrorists against your own citizens is certainly heinous.... Why are you arguing otherwise?

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[whistlingtony]

Have you ever noticed how some people say the government is out to get them? They get guns, they have a standoff with police, etc etc....

The difference of course is that the old white dudes are usually complaining about some imaginary slight and they are called patriots. They have a standoff and the cops usually show restraint. When poor inner city folks who actually do get crushed by the police regularly complain, well, they're just uppity thugs and vandals.... the cops move in, bash some heads, and it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

Nope, no double standard here!

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[HiThere]

To be fair, the police have, occasionally, committed violence and mass murder against white communities. Usually separatist religious groups.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[murkwood7]

...using it against American citizens who are engaged in the Constitutionally protected activity of burning down their city, and looting their neighbours businesses...

There, FTFY

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Looting and burning a CVS does nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny. The founding fathers would not be impressed.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

neither did dumping a bunch of tea in the bay

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Dereck1701]

"......are not Constitutionally protected activities"

Of course they aren't, but really what percentage of the protestors in Baltimore are taking part in those activities? I'd wager that I can display that percentage on one hand. Yet we're told that its necessary to equip police like they're fighting a war, suspend civil liberties and arrest hundreds/thousands all because of the massive amounts of footage of the same 2-5 burning cars and 5-15 damaged businesses probably caused by no more than a few dozen miscreants.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

I was coming here to say exactly that. Such double standards. Maybe if the rioters owned slaves, burning CVS to the ground would make more sense to GP.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Two totally unrelated acts. Not even minutely close. Way to play.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I don't know the tea was unfairly taxed, while CVS was actually improving the community.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The assertion being rebutted was "no matter what the reason", not that there were things that were not justifiable. So whether any particular instance does or does not, is not the concern, but whether every particular instance cannot, a sentiment with which I do not believe there is universal concurrence.

You should be able to recognize the difference.

That said, a CVS might well contain valuable medical supplies and foodstuffs necessary for the continuation of the struggle against oppression, or it might be used as a redoubt by the forces of oppression. That would be different, wouldn't it? Or would it not be possible to consider those viable justifications? Or it might just be a result of the chaotic nature of war and conflict. That's why it's considered acceptable for a solider to hit a civilian as long as they're not aiming at them but at an appropriate target, or what they believe to be one. Why not for revolutionaries?

Or did you simply fail to see how the posting by jklovanc claiming that no justification was possible is an absolute standard entirely prohibiting the right of revolution?

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

Why are you arguing otherwise?

Yes. A tool that can be used to deal with large events like riots should bot be ignored just because it was originally designed for a different purpose.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

Do you see no difference between burning and looting and holing up in a compound?

police regularly complain, well, they're just uppity thugs and vandals.

No they are not. Have all the organizes peaceful protests you want and I will not call you thugs and vandals. When they cross the line to include destruction of property and theft then they become thugs and vandals. There is a line between what is lawful protest and what is not. Burning buildings and vehicles and looting from stores is not lawful protest.

Sorry but when you cross that line you lose support for your cause. If you act like animals be prepared to be treated as such.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

against American citizens who are engaged in the Constitutionally protected activity of criticizing their government

and especially those who work for the Government. That was predicted by George Orwell in the novel "1984". In the book, the protagonist Winston Smith worked for the Government department that rewrote history books. Even the speck of dust that Smith placed on the corner of his diary was replaced.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[atfrase]

If people honestly consider this "insightful" and not "troll" then we're in worse shape than I realized. Yes, there are rioters, and yes, they should be dealt with according to the law. *Nobody* is saying that arsonists, looters or vandals should be given a pass.

But let's not forget that despite what the evening news likes to insinuate, those people make up a really tiny percentage of the protesters. Are you honestly willing to throw away the ideals of this country and violate the freedom of thousands of innocent and peaceful people in order to catch a few dozen vandals?

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

Yet we're told that its necessary to equip police like they're fighting a war, suspend civil liberties and arrest hundreds/thousands all because of the massive amounts of footage of the same 2-5 burning cars and 5-15 damaged businesses probably caused by no more than a few dozen miscreants.

You might want to get your figures correct;

Baltimore Police said 235 arrests were made overnight -- 201 adults and 34 juveniles. Twenty officers were injured in Monday night's violence.
The mayor's office said the city's fire department dealt with fires in 144 vehicles and 15 buildings. Baltimore police said one person is in critical condition after one of those fires.

That is just fires. Then there is the looting that did not generate fires.

So you have greatly exaggerated arrests and greatly under reported vehicle fires.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

Actually it was. Learn a little history. The Boston Tea Party was a protest about taxation without representation and specifically taxation on tea.

How do you justify burning down a senior citizen's complex?

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were around during the American Revolution, you would have turned in the forefathers of this country for terrorism. You'd probably be proud of yourself too.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

You can protest effectively without rioting, burning and looting. It worked pretty well for India to get it's own government.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you arguing otherwise?

Yes. A tool that can be used to deal with large events like riots should bot be ignored just because it was originally designed for a different purpose.

That's the same thinking that introduced the oxymoron "tactical nuke". Some tools are so inherently dangerous that they should only be deployed against the most heinous of enemies.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Dereck1701]

Those are the same numbers portrayed on every website & news service, but as your excerpt noted they're all directly from the mouth of the City government which has every reason in the world to embellish them. First off the fires, I can find only 4 considerable fires, a CVS, an under construction senior center, a liquor store and an abandoned warehouse (right next to the senior center). Cars? I can only find images/footage of about a dozen cars with heavy damage, though there are definitely a lot more cars with minor damage (slashed tires, broken windows, etc). Most of the damage to those cars is being caused by a very few people, one youtube video shows a single individual smashing 3 car windows in under 5 seconds. Officer "injuries" are a bit harder to track, but of the "98 injured" is being thrown around, of those at most 41 required "some form" of medical attention and only 13 apparently had injuries significant enough to take time off of work. And as far as the arrests, the BPD has released over half of those arrested, While I admit my numbers may be a bit low for Baltimore specifically, but the numbers/impressions out of the press & city government seem to be extremely high.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[mysidia]

"and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."

This is an acknowledgement of a right that people as a whole have.

Individuals do not have this right, neither do small groups of people supporting a common cause.

And the moment a group of people begins to infringe upon someone else's rights, by causing harm to other people's safety, prosperity, or happiness, in a violent manner, their group changes from being a "protest" into an "illegal assembly", And every person participating in that illegal assembly is essentially aiding and abetting the terrorist acts against the public and the business owners.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The Greatest Generation leeching Social Security off today's citizens?

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

Don't you think that the new agencies fact checked? I think it is strange that you do all of this "research" but don't cite any references. How did you do your research? Surfing the web? Don't you think that only interesting pictures would be posted? The internet is not a complete history. It only has what people post.

Take a look at these videos. Those two groups make up much more than a few dozen.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Quasimodem]

When buildings and vehicles get burned and stores get looted, you rebuild the one and restock the other. When people get killed, or have their heads or spines broken, the remedy is not so easily arranged.

You seem to hold property in a markedly higher esteem than human life.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

Revolution does not need to include destruction of private property. How is burning down a old age home helping revolution?

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

Show me where the founding fathers burned down private owned buildings and stole from private citizens not directly related to government action? There may be damage during the war but not riots.

PS. The Boston Tea Party does not count as it was a direct protest against the Tea Act in 1773.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

the remedy is not so easily arranged.

There is no remedy to death but that does not justify looting and arson of private property.

You seem to hold property in a markedly higher esteem than human life.

I most certainly do not. I also don't see how burning and looting private property has anything to do with how the police treat minorities. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Revolution does not need to include destruction of private property.

So one would hope, as one would hope for peaceful resolutions to all human conflicts, but sadly history seems to show this is not always true in the scope of human activity. Was the Boston Tea Party needed? Was Thomas Jefferson wrong when he wrote the Declaray of Independence? When he joined in an armed revolution that did more than destroy private property, but took the lives of many individuals across several years of war? What about Simon Bolivar?

How is burning down a old age home helping revolution?

You seem to have failed to read my prior post where I already noted that your assertion was that none of the acts could be justified. The existence of any one unjustified act does not make all acts unjustified.

You are the one who has to show that every act is unjustified, bring up all the individual instances you want. At most, I'll agree that the tragedy was terrible and then ask you why one proves them all. How can you prove that?

This will be difficult since I see you've already repudiated your original words by giving your endorsement to the Boston Tea Party.

That's one. Are you sure there aren't others?

Also what do you think of what those state constitutions have to say? Important or not?

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[sumdumass]

Actually, dumping the tea was a specific response to a tax on the tea and regulations that forced the tea onto the colonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

The Boston tea party had more to do with protesting, championing liberty and fighting tyrrany. Can you find a connection to the burning of a CVS or a Senior citizens center?

I swear I should be never go unsurprised by the bullshit people post but I always am. It's as if they openly want to prove how ignorant they are to the world.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[sumdumass]

How are they not terrorist? I mean using violence and the threat of violence against the civilian populations in order to influence actions of government is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you can't. Not anymore. That's been proven many times over in the USA. The Machine has learned from past protests, and actively and effectively sabotages or makes illegal any effective protest means.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't you think that the new agencies fact checked?"

LOL! I was wondering for the past few posts whether you were simply naive, or if you were a 1%'er shill. Turns out you're just dangerously naive.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing of India.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[DocHoncho]

It was also, incontrovertibly, a terrorist act. Does the the intent of that particular bit of civil disobedience out weigh the illegality of the act? If so, at what point to we draw the line between legitimate civil disobedience and outright terrorism? In that vein, what exactly, does this particular CVS have to do with race relations and the actions of the local Police? Is there some collusion between the Police and CVS that is causing Baltimore police to unfairly target specific racial groups?

Since the likely answer is "No", what then is the political benefit of looting CVS, given that we've already established that CVS had nothing whatsoever to do with the events that lead to the death of Mr. Gray.

I'm all for sticking it to the man, but the Men that run CVS are almost certainly not the same ones that have engendered an environment where Police abuse alleged perpetrators with impunity. Barring any involvement by the management of CVS in the culture of the local police, I can't see any logical reason why looting their stores is anything but opportunistic criminality that is trying to wield current events as a shield against obvious wrong doing.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Dereck1701]

News agencies fact checking government press releases? Not likely. And looking at the video links you provided they're showing the same 2 fires (CVS, Senior Center) and the same cars (Police Cruiser/Van fire, Police cruiser swarmed, black car on fire) over and over with a couple dozen people throwing stuff (pop bottles, rocks, etc) at something (cars/police), less than dozen actually on top/near it destroying and hundreds around it watching/video taping.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jklovanc]

showing the same 2 fires (CVS, Senior Center)

Because they are the biggest and need to fit into a 30 second spot.

and the same cars (Police Cruiser/Van fire, Police cruiser swarmed, black car on fire)

See above

According to you the government lies, the news agencies don't check but you can get an accurate picture from a few posts on the internet. That is not likely.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you find a connection to the burning of a CVS or a Senior citizens center?

Why? The statement above, was that all acts of violence were never acceptable, no matter what the reason. That there was no Constitutional right to revolution.

You find the Boston Tea Party acceptable. Interestingly, so did the person who made the statement already mentioned.

Whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accepted that some are justifiable.

Is that not correct?

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Founding fathers? I can't say offhand, but the words of Thomas Paine are quite vehement. Still, it is a known fact that food riots occurred during the American revolution, there was even a fire in New York City. The participants may be unknown, and sometimes the causes murky, but that you claim there weren't riots, that buildings weren't burned down, shows maybe your historical awareness isn't especially accurate.

Don't believe me? Then perhaps Abigail Adams is someone you wil heed:

  “a number of females, some say a hundred, some say more, assembled with a cart and trucks, marched down to the warehouse, and demanded the keys, which he refused to deliver.” When Boylston stood up to the women, “one of them seized him by his neck and tossed him into the cart. Upon his finding no quarter, he delivered the keys, when they tipped up the cart and discharged him, then opened the warehouse, hoisted out the coffee themselves, put it into the trucks and drove off.”

Then again, your words were for ANY REASON. Apparently you found a reason that covers the Boston Tea Party. You just repudiated yourself.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[sumdumass]

Why? The statement above, was that all acts of violence were never acceptable, no matter what the reason. That there was no Constitutional right to revolution.

Above where? The comment specifically said "Looting and burning a CVS does nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny." and the reply was some hogwash uninformed opinion about the Boston tea party. No one in this thread said anything about never acceptable just that certain acts do nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny. I'm sorry that you feel the need to ignore that in order to impress whatever ideology you think is correct, but reality exists outside your head.

You find the Boston Tea Party acceptable. Interestingly, so did the person who made the statement already mentioned.

I do find the Boston tea party acceptable, however, I never said as much until now. What I said and showed was that there was a direct connection to the tea and tyranny and loss of liberty. There is not connection with a CVS and senior center that benefited the community more than anything.

Whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accepted that some are justifiable.

I do not see any connections at all to any legitimate reasons furthering liberty, to oppress tyranny, or any other justification other than purposeful destruction. Perhaps you actually know of something and for some reason are refusing to share it with the world. Keeping that secret does nothing to further any cause so I guess we are back to the question of can you find a connection to the burning of a CVS and senior center? I do not think you can which makes it nothing more than a senseless act of destruction aimed at the private population to influence political decisions. That is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."

This is an acknowledgement of a right that people as a whole have.

Individuals do not have this right, neither do small groups of people supporting a common cause.

Sorry, but the assertion was that the right does not exist at all, for any reason, not the parameters of it. But this is not a universal sentiment, and it has been refuted in the constitution of the the three states listed, as well as several others, and in those of other countries.

If you want to discuss the parameters of it, then we can do so, but prior to that, I'd like an acknowledgement of it existing.

And the moment a group of people begins to infringe upon someone else's rights, by causing harm to
other people's safety, prosperity, or happiness, in a violent manner, their
group changes from being a "protest" into an "illegal assembly", And every person participating in that
illegal assembly is essentially aiding and abetting the terrorist acts against the public and the business owners.

Have you considered how that could describe the cops from the perspective of people who consider themselves oppressed by said armed forces that are infringing their rights. Do you contend that said oppression should always be handled solely by peaceful means, abnegating the use of force?

Well, at least two states have constitutions that declare they reject that doctrine as absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. And the other I quoted seems supportive as well.

Do you see how they contrast with the point made by jklonvanc above? What is your position? Do you think these state constitutions offer reasons, or do you think the constitutions are wrong in the entirety?

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

It was also, incontrovertibly, a terrorist act. Does the the intent of that particular bit of civil disobedience out weigh the illegality of the act? If so, at what point to we draw the line between legitimate civil disobedience and outright terrorism?

According to the above, maybe 2 or 3 levels by now, at no point, because "no matter the reason" is an absolute.

Do you concur with that or not?

You do realize you can talk about one CVS till you're blue in the face, and no matter how justified or unjustified it might be, it won't establish the absolute, right?

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Above where? The comment specifically said "Looting and burning a CVS does nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny." and the reply was some hogwash uninformed opinion about the Boston tea party. No one in this thread said anything about never acceptable just that certain acts do nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny. I'm sorry that you feel the need to ignore that in order to impress whatever ideology you think is correct, but reality exists outside your head.

In this thread, a person did in fact make this statement:

Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason.

No statement claiming that they are always Constitutionally protected activities was made to my knowledge. That they are never Constitutionally protected no matter what the reason was made. True, you could argue that it's not in the US Constitution, but there were state Constitutions cited that rejected the notion.

It was the first-level reply, so perhaps you missed it, but that claim is why the discussion is not about whether or not any given incident is justified or unjustified, but whether any at all can be. There's no need to concern ourselves with proving the justification of every incident, that some incidents are not justified is recognized. The burden is on the assertion that no incidents are justified. If you can't follow that, then it seems to me you're the one who wants to ignore what's really the subject of discussion, and isn't bothering to pay attention to what has been said throughout the scope of it.

Again, whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accept that others are justifiable.

Is that not the case?

Or are you not paying attention to the reality that exists outside your own head?

As far as I can tell, there is nobody arguing that absolutely no incidents are unjustified, but there is somebody who did argue that absolutely no incidents were justified. That there was no acceptable reason. Then they went around and said "Oh wait, here's a reason I do find acceptable." when the Boston Tea Party was mentioned which means they really ought to consider admitting they didn't hold their opinion for long.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you are probably a middle
Or high class white person. You have never lived in these conditions. You haven't seen your friends die from a cop and being told "oh he should have followed the law". With no other recourse or investigations. And then you see that same cop patrolling the same area as if nothing happen. You know at any time he can kill you and get away with it(because he's a cop, they are honest right?).

No one polices the police. That is the problem.

And when it happen again people protested, nothing happen, so people who are violent anyway(gang members) got so mad and said
Fuck it.

That's the gist of it. People got so mad that they snapped and said fuck it.

So keep sitting back in your beautiful house and neighborhood and saying "this should never happen". It's easy to throw stones when you live in a metal house. If you lived in the same glass houses, I guarantee you you wouldn't be throwing stones.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm governments do lie.

And how is the news agency supposed to fact check? Go out and tally what's going on. No, they get the reports from the cops and they believe them (because cops == good, they don't lie :/)

You are so fucking naive it's unbelievable. What are you like 16 years old with no life experience. Christ sakes.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[jc42]

How are they not terrorist? I mean using violence and the threat of violence against the civilian populations in order to influence actions of government is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

Nah; in the US, the term has been "re-purposed". It now means "Anyone that the people currently in power don't like." That definition successfully explains almost all uses of the word "terrorist" now, while the original, obsolete definition you quote doesn't.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[sumdumass]

I cannot imagine the people in power like the people looting and setting infrastructure and private property on fire. I guess it meets both versions of the definition then.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[sumdumass]

In this thread, a person did in fact make this statement:

Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason.

And whoever said that was completely correct. The Boston tea party was not constitutional either despite the constitution not even conceived at the time. But it was justified because it was a direct assault on tyranny and oppression in the defense of liberty.

No statement claiming that they are always Constitutionally protected activities was made to my knowledge. That they are never Constitutionally protected no matter what the reason was made. True, you could argue that it's not in the US Constitution, but there were state Constitutions cited that rejected the notion.

Neither state being the one the looting and burning of a CVS and senior center happened in- and that is even if you do stretch the wording to justify legal violence. Also, neither targeted centers had anything to do with the government. It's like shooting your neighbor because you want the mayor to resign.

It was the first-level reply, so perhaps you missed it, but that claim is why the discussion is not about whether or not any given incident is justified or unjustified, but whether any at all can be. There's no need to concern ourselves with proving the justification of every incident, that some incidents are not justified is recognized. The burden is on the assertion that no incidents are justified. If you can't follow that, then it seems to me you're the one who wants to ignore what's really the subject of discussion, and isn't bothering to pay attention to what has been said throughout the scope of it.

Again, what you quoted mentions constitutional protections- not justifications. Can violence be justified, sure it can. Does the US constitution or any other justify it? Not under the first amendment and as far as I can tell, only in the defense of the country or state against invasion. But more importantly, what happened in Baltimore is nothing comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

Again, whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accept that others are justifiable.

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. If you think past situations justify this situation, you would be wrong. That would be like you killing your neighbor in his back yard because someone shot an intruder in their house 5 years ago. They are different situations and while one is justified, it cannot be used to justify the other. If you think burning hundred of cars belonging to private citizens or drug stores or senior centers is justified because of the Boston tea party, you would be incorrect.

As far as I can tell, there is nobody arguing that absolutely no incidents are unjustified, but there is somebody who did argue that absolutely no incidents were justified. That there was no acceptable reason.

From what I can tell in this thread and by what you laid reference to already, the term is not justified but constitutional. They are not interchangeable and those who burned or looted were not within their constitutional rights.

Then they went around and said "Oh wait, here's a reason I do find acceptable." when the Boston Tea Party was mentioned which means they really ought to consider admitting they didn't hold their opinion for long.

Maybe you are confused. The Boston Tea Party was an attack on government not civilians or private corporations. The East India Tea company was not a private company either. It was being supported by the British government and had newly created privileges that locked all competition out along with a tax placed on the tea to specifically benefit them.

Again, where is the connection to government acts that justify these actions. If there is none, it surely is not comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you're saying is that mortars, flame throwers, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons and assassination should be used against the rioters? Those are tools that can be used to deal with large events like riots that are being ignored because they were originally designed for a different purpose. The simple fact is that the practices of fusion centers violate all sorts of principles of a free society, but they creep in on arguments that terrorism is such a horrible threat that they should be given a pass as long as they're only used for their original purpose. It was completely predictable from the start that there would be almost immediate mission creep (heck, most of those of us who were critics of these things were convinced and remain convinced that the mission creep was already there, pre-planned, before the mission even started), but we were shouted down and ignored by the same people who later turn around and say that if such a tool exists, it should be used.

Re:"If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already a word for rioters, it's "rioters". It refers to people taking to the streets to commit acts of violence and vandalism out of anger. Terrorism generally has more of an element of planning (not saying that riots never, ever have planning, but it's generally not the same as actual terrorism), and more of an organized campaign. Rioting tends to be more opportunistic.

Think about why you wouldn't call the 9/11 plane attacks "rioting", then try to invert that logic.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[Anonymous Coward]

And whoever said that was completely correct.

No, they weren't. Multiple state Constitutions were cited. (Including Maryland's.) They expressly reserved the right of the people for such conduct, and several of them specifically reject the doctrine of nonresistance. And that was not an exhaustive review. There are other states with similar provisions, and in the Constitutions of other countries.

That makes it not completely correct. And no, they didn't specifically say the US Constitution, but then the US Constitution does say it does not list all rights held by the people, so the absence of any one being listed is not compelling.

Similarly, we need not concern ourselves with the Boston Tea Party occurring before the adoption of the any given Constitution, as the acceptance of that act is sufficient on its own to show that some reasons are considered acceptable. We also need not concern ourselves with the particulars of the offense since the listing was not particular in itself, but ended with "etc" to show that it was not limited but applicable to others as well.

Again, where is the connection to government acts that justify these actions. If there is none, it surely is not comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

Why? There is no intention or desire to compare them. Bring up all the tragic incidents you want, all that was needed was one incident to be considered justified.

Done.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[pnutjam]

You must not have ever worked for CVS, they leech money out of the community, pay people crap, and claim they are "managers" (to avoid OT). I think these economic issues are exactly part of the problem these rioters are protesting. Heck, the Senior Center is just bread and circuses for the "Seniors" that have been discarded as too old to be useful.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[sumdumass]

If that were true, it sounds like nobody would want to work for CVS. maybe it is true but it's the fault of the employees for staying. No one forced them to work there.

Re: "If you have nothing to hide..."

[pnutjam]

Yeah, that's true. I was commenting on the "what has CVS done?" attitude. CVS is no paragon of virtue, they might not deserve a torching, but they might to some people.

A gawker site

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well put on the tinfoil hat

They are burning down a city

[Crashmarik]

Just what do you consider sufficient probable cause ?

Re:They are burning down a city

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing to prevent undesired outcomes (legal), it's quite another to completely steer the outcome (NOT legal).

Re:They are burning down a city

[Anonymous Coward]

> burning down a city
There were what, 15 buildings set on fire? Why does this mean the entire city has to be put into 1984 mode?

But I guess "geek" sites like Slashdot can stab video games in the back over a half dozen tweets, so maybe you're just more in tune with the zeitgeist than I am.

Re:They are burning down a city

[Anonymous Coward]

They are burning down a city ... For a REASON. Perhaps you should bother to inform yourself on the conditions Baltimore's poorest live In and how the local and state governments do NOTHING to improve things. Corruption. Corruption. Corruption. This was coming and it didn't take a genius to see it. Nobody cared. They silently protested for 5 days. Nobody listened until they got mad. Maybe instead of enforcement we try actual improvements for a change.

Re:They are burning down a city

[houghi]

I can assume that this will be happening more and more as the devide between the haves and have nots gets bigger and bigger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I just hope I am not arround anymore when it happens.

Re:They are burning down a city

[ScentCone]

For a REASON

So, the corruption you're worried about is something that you think will be fixed by trashing a liquor store? By looting and burning the local CVS? By burning down an almost completely senior center being built specifically to improve the local quality of life in that crappy neighborhood?

Yes, the democrats that have been running that city for decades have plenty to answer for in the way of imperfect services being rendered. But unless you think it's the city government's role to step in between two people and prevent pregnancy from occurring, or to follow thousands of kids around to make sure they actually bother to go to school, then what exactly is it you're proposing? Who is it that starts and populates violent local gangs? Who is it that kills the vast majority of those who die in that area, and scares those who aren't involved out of doing anything about it? Why is it that businesses don't see any point in risking their money to launch a venture in such a neighborhood - perhaps because they can't find employable local people to actually work there, and can't find a market for their goods and services in an area that's filled with abandoned buildings and fatherless kids running drug markets?

The problem isn't government corruption, the problem is in thinking that what amounts to a poisonous local culture is the government's area of responsibility. Those neighborhoods are crap because the people that live there can't keep their own kids under control long enough to turn them into viable members of human civilization. And those that do have the wherewithal to do so leave (along with whatever economic activity they might have represented) because the local culture is completely toxic to their kids' success.

Re:They are burning down a city

[mrchaotica]

The city fucking deserves what it got!

If Baltimore's police wasn't made up of murderous, jackbooted thugs, then there wouldn't be any riots in the first place.

Compare and contrast Baltimore or Ferguson to Charleston and how the latter city handled the Walter Scott murder. Whereas the governments of Ferguson and Baltimore (until recently) dug in their heels against their own citizens in defense of their corrupt police, Charleston's leadership had the basic decency to prosecute a blatantly obvious crime without trying to spin or weasel their way out of it. As a direct consequence, there have been no riots in Charleston.

The lesson for government here is simple: if you don't want riots, then respect the citizens' rights!

Re:They are burning down a city

[Crashmarik]

They are burning down a city ... For a REASON.

Every nutter in the universe has a "REASON". Most don't go out and burn down their neighbor's house.

Perhaps you should bother to inform yourself on the conditions Baltimore's poorest live In and how the local and state governments do NOTHING to improve things.

Perhaps you need to INFORM yourself

The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

You want to complain about the government not doing things ? These people are the voters, they could have elected a business and investment friendly city government.

Re:They are burning down a city

[bl968]

“I was watching the news last night,” said Morgan Freeman. “and said, ‘You know, when we were out here marching peacefully, nobody was here. And now we start burning the place down, everybody is listening. What do you think we’re gonna do to be heard?’

Re:They are burning down a city

[sumdumass]

And when they were marching peacefully, I thought, that is horrible what happened to that guy. I hope those cops pay for it. When they were burning the place down, I thought this sort of justifies why the cops treat people like animals in some places and it's no wonder they shoot first and ask questions later.

I'm wondering if he thinks the message they want heard is what is actually being heard when everybody is listening?

Re:They are burning down a city

[rtb61]

Kind of late for that mate, it is already happening and unless you intend to pass on shortly you will be a part of it getting much worse, good luck, you'll need it in America. Emigrate early, rather than late because whilst the asshats that caused it all the 1%, most certainly will make sure they can leave with a substantive portion of their wealth intact, their victims the 99% not so much. Collapsing Empire's trying to force the continuance of their waning dominance, inevitably become self destructive. The US is becoming such a laughable example of this it will simply be easier to refer to them as characters out of star wars, the evil empire, the president as Emperor and his Darth as vice president and futile and corrupt congress and senate and of course the US military, the storm troopers, "the tighter you squeeze the more they will slip through you fingers".

Re:They are burning down a city

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a quote from the Orioles' VP, John Angelos:

"That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night's property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American's civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state."

People need to understand the above, as it is the root cause for these types of issues. If things continue down the path we're on, the unrest will only worsen. The truly dangerous and foolish will be the ones who advocate for more extreme police measures as a response, rather than addressing the underlying causes of the unhappiness.

Re: They are burning down a city

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree about proper handling of the cases making a difference but the issue with your comment is that it's not the government that loses when people riot... it's (other) people who lose. The owner of that store that burned, of that car that was smashed, the parents of that kid who got hurt... yeah we taught them a lesson alright...

Re:They are burning down a city

[sumdumass]

do the down mods think they can hide the comment or something?

Seriously, when you act out in order to get attention, the attention you get is often not the type you want. A kid wanting a piece of cake at dinner will likely get an ass whooping instead of a piece of cake if after being ignored he decides to throw things off the table.

Re:They are burning down a city

[Anonymous Coward]

Comply with your lashing or we will punish you by lashing.

You would make an excellent tyrant sumdumass. But a terrible human being.

Re:They are burning down a city

[sumdumass]

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Acting out and justifying the treatment you are protesting does nothing to stop the treatment from happening. Idiots like you of all people should know that, you must think everyone is out to get you.

Re:They are burning down a city

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I need to write a letter to my local school board that I'm preparing a list of 2nd degree murder charges I'm going to be pushing for the local AG to file against them for every time a child was on a school bus without a seat belt. It's going to take a while... but $JUSTICE!

I can understand that there's some asshole cops out there. However, there are a lot of cops that spend much of their day in incredibly dangerous environments. They're out there herding the rapists and the gangs, lots of people that would stick a fork in your eye as soon as share a meal with you. They'll spend years getting assaulted by criminals as part of their job. You won't hear about it because it will end up being a minor charge for a nobody that won't ever make papers - no one you will ever care about. But that cop makes one mistake - and WHAM here comes the instant ignorant $MOB_JUSTICE. You want to be real careful the kind of cop you're coming down on - the one that is serially abusing his position, or the one that made an honest mistake.

The way I figure it, if you're going to get charged for murder while following company policy, why the hell would you ever want to work for the police? I am betting that this will tip the scales even further in favor of the people-who-only-want-the-power being employed by the police departments. I don't think that's a much better situation. Funny how people are all for giving drug dealers reduced sentences, do what we can to get people out of prison, etc etc, but when it comes time to protecting the servants of the citizenry they're all for hanging them out to dry without even waiting for a trial.

Re:They are burning down a city

[Anonymous Coward]

the bullshit "police bill of rights" in baltimore should be rescinded post haste.

Re:They are burning down a city

[mrchaotica]

Blah, blah, blah.

I have one word -- just one word -- that renders your entire argument moot. You want to know what it is? Alright, here it comes:

EUROPE.

Somehow, the police in Europe manage to deal with the same kinds of crime we have here, yet manage to do it without killing nearly as many people as our police do. One statistic I've heard is that American police killed more people in March than the UK police have since 1900. That's one month vs. more than a century. (And I don't care that the US population is higher; it doesn't matter -- we're talking orders of magnitude here!) There is no explanation, other than American police having a SYSTEMIC problem of incompetence, corruption, and needless brutality.

Also note that, while bad cops are bad cops, "good" cops that cover for bad cops are bad cops too. The problem in Ferguson and Baltimore is not that one bad cop fucked up, it's that one bad cop fucked up and all the other bad cops -- namely, the vast majority of the cops in those jurisdictions -- defended him!

In other words, it's "only" 99% of cops who make the rest look bad.

Re:They are burning down a city

[Rich0]

I once was driving through Baltimore and wanted to grab some lunch. I saw a sign for the "Baltimore Travel Center." Hey, sounds like a rest stop, right?

More like Greyhound bus terminal. The neighboorhood surrounding it looked like it should have its photo in the wikipedia entry for "Urban Blight." And that was in broad daylight - I couldn't imagine driving around that area at night. There was trash everywhere - parking lot, inside, etc. The works. I've lived in major cities and downtown doesn't bother me at all in most of them.

We just take people who live in these neighborhoods and try to pretend that they don't exist. Then we act indignant when they lash out. They don't feel like they're a part of society, so they don't act the part either.

Re:They are burning down a city

[pnutjam]

Your probably the same parent who says, "He won't listen unless I beat him first."

Re:They are burning down a city

[jakimfett]

I wish I had mod points. This, right here, is why other 1st world residents look at 'MURIKA and shake their heads, and resolve never to live here.

(obviously, we're still better than places that are openly corrupt and allow the crime cartels to run entire cities...but replace "crime cartel" with "large above-the-law corporation" and it's starting to look uncomfortably similar...)

Re:They are burning down a city

[sumdumass]

I see, you can ignore the point by attacking the messenger. Brilliant debate tactics. You should become a politician.

Re:They are burning down a city

[pnutjam]

I was trying to communicate in words you will understand. Some people won't listen until the fight is over.

Re:They are burning down a city

[sumdumass]

Lol.. i guess you failed then. Robbing a bank because your upset that you got a speeding ticket does nothing to the ticket nor advance any claim that the ticket was inappropriately issued. Attacking the messenger instead of the message changes nothing in that respect. It just deflects the question. It's like a politician being asked about an opponent position on economic stability and replying that he picks his nose.

Re:They are burning down a city

[pnutjam]

Wow, more strawman arguments, I'm sorry you had to grow up with whatever mental disabilities you have. I hope you get better.

Re:They are burning down a city

[sumdumass]

Lol.. i see you have absolutely nothing of substance to offer so you will continue to attack the messenger instead of the message.

Here is a hint. Its not a strawman by definition or application. You throwing the word about doesn't make it so either.

Re:They are burning down a city

[pnutjam]

It's a classic strawman, you are equating robbing a bank because you got speeding ticket to burning down a store that takes advantage of the community. Look at the LA riots for a clue. This is the burbling resentment that our current economic policy encourages, not the lashing out of a madman, like you claim.

Things that make you go hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You know I find it interesting how protesters find the local police appalling and people like Michael Moore call for disarming the police. Yet, everyone seems fine with what the Federal government is doing to its citizens. You have military doing crowd control exercises and practicing for martial law and yet we protest over the death of a drug dealer? Yes, let's disarm the police and see how badly order falls in these neighborhoods. I don't think people understand that chaos and crime is only limited by the actions of police. Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, everyone seems fine with what the Federal government is doing to its citizens.

"Everyone" is most explicitly not "fine" with what the Federal government is doing to its citizens.

...Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.

So, this is now a death sentence, to be administered by the police in the back of a van with no trial? The US now has Judge Dredd for our legal system?

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[Sique]

Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.

He is the victim. He is a human being with the constitutional right not to have his spine broken by someone. He still has his constitutional rights even if you think he is a bad person. And there is that thing about human rights. You have them as a human, completely independent of you behaviour. I know that some people dream of stripping other people of their human rights because they dislike them. But that's a thinking we usually call totalitarian.

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[HiThere]

Additionally, according to experts (Synanon) heroin is less addictive than tobbacco. So why demonize it?

I do agree that most drug dealers should be incarcerated...but for selling fraudulent merchandise. (I'm informed by the press that most black market drugs are mixed with various harmful substances other than the drug. And this time I suspect that they are telling the truth. For reasons suggested by Thoreau's "A Trout in Milk".)

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[HiThere]

How about "both". I don't think he was a maltreated innocent, but he didn't deserve summary execution (if you can call illegal assault resultlng in murder execution). And it wouldn't have inspired public rage if he wasn't merely the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you say he wasn't maltreated? He did nothing wrong and was falsely arrested. He then had his neck kneed until broken, and his throat punched until he could no longer breathe. These cops deserve death.

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[Sique]

No. There is no "both". There is that "innocent until proven guilty". And it's the task of a court, consisting of a jury and a judge, to determine his guilt. For the police, at the most he is a suspect. It's not the police's task to neither judge nor to execute their judgement.

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[WaffleMonster]

Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual

Judging others is a surprisingly worthless enterprise.

criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.

One of the underlying problems governments face is they refuse to understand use of force to preserve "freedom for all" only works against outliers.

Illicit drug trade is one of the worlds largest enterprises. Millions of people use illicit drugs in the USA. Governments everywhere are squandering their legitimacy to create artificial scarcity fueling a self-destructive feedback loop. As a result entire countries have or are on the verge of loosing their monopoly on the use of force.

Oh and by the way capitalism, technology and global labor markets are not free. If winners (those who have means) are not serious about helping losers don't expect resulting society to not suck.

have military doing crowd control exercises and practicing for martial law and yet we protest over the death of a drug dealer?

We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Unprofessional behavior of LEA causes real injury and death. Preparing for the next apocalypse is in and of itself mostly harmless.

Yes, let's disarm the police and see how badly order falls in these neighborhoods.

The more you find yourself having to rely on force, rise of police agencies indistinguishable from military and associated panopticon bullshit that would make NSA proud the more you are losing. The focus should be on winning not losing.

I have a nasty habit of blaming the media. Full of tired, utterly lazy and stupid talking heads who increasingly only cares about itself.. willing to accept no responsibility for the aggregate effect of deliberate intentional selection of train wreck narratives propagated 24x7.

Media promotion of FUD and strife is doing real damage poisoning the minds of voters into seeking out counterproductive policy decisions and dividing rather than uniting tribes.

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[Hartree]

"Judging others is a surprisingly worthless enterprise."

Unless you have a political difference with them or those who agree with them. In that case there's a huge amount of "worth", read that as "money", involved in judging them. Just look at all of the ad supported news and political sites dedicated to backing up the judgment that "the other side is a bunch of pooty-heads".

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, i've been dealing my whole life with the problems of police brutality in US

i've known cops, been in jail, been beaten, seen people beaten, had my friends beaten

i've respected cops for the awful jobs they do, trying to make the place livable for the rest of us

i understand intuitively the massive context change that happens when a cop looks at someone as a criminal (someone to
be subdued) vs a citizen (someone to be protected)

i've been exposed to literature that dwells the leakage of the criminal world into the enforcement world

it wasn't until just now, with the conflation of those two terms, that i realized that the cops are terrorists. in the least ambiguous sense of
the word. that is, its imperative for the cops to demonstrate that if you fuck with them, you are going to suffer. alot. this is apparently
their most effective way of keeping populations at the level of simmering without boiling over.

terrorism, anti-terrorism, exactly the same thing. think twice before you mess with me

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Point 1: We don't know all the facts yet, so a rational person would realize that it is premature to start drawing conclusions about who is guilty of what
Point 2: From the outline given by the prosecutor there are certainly grounds for investigating the six officers for criminal behavior as the facts that have been disclosed so far would seem to indicate that it was an illegal arrest coupled with gross neglict
Point 3: The peaceful protestors are engaging in the correct behavior to draw attention to the issues there
Point 4: The rioters who burned down buildings and looted from their fellow citizen's stores are criminals who are merely using the current issue as an excuse to victimize and endanger their fellow citizens (setting fires in the middle of an urban setting while there are riots that could easily prevent fire fighters from responding puts a large number people at significant risk of injury or death)
Point 5: When criminals are massing in the streets looting and setting fires that endanger human life the government should respond with any and all available tools to stop them

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[sudon't]

What's wrong with selling drugs like heroin? Why is that, or simply getting high, a crime at all? Why do you think it's ok to arrest someone who was not committing a crime, simply because they may have committed a crime in the past?
It is this puritan drug war which is driving all of this police militarization, and especially the hyper-aggressive policing in black city neighborhoods. It is the drug war which creates almost all of the crime in these areas. The drug war is the greater problem, and the root cause.

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[HiThere]

I'm *NOT* saying he wasn't maltreated. In fact I suggested that he was probably murdered. But I'm also saying that I the evidence indicates that he was not an innocent (which doesn't mean he was guilty of anything in particular).

Please note the distinction between "an innocent" and "innocent".

Re:Things that make you go hmmm

[HiThere]

The "innocent until proven guilty" bit is refering to the opinion that should be held by a juror, not to facts in the world. Were I a juror I would require that his guilt be proven. As I'm in the role of a reader of an article about it, I cannot take the same stance, lest I not have an opinion about anything.

Yes, it *IS* the task of a court, and in particular of a jury, to decide legal guilt. But legal guilt is not actual guilt, and, in fact, often gets things wrong. (Not, however, as often as a biased and illegally acting police officer.)

To the police he should have been a suspect. They apparently murdered him. But even this, alone, would not have set off a civil disturbance. That is clear evidence that this is a part of a pattern of behavior on the part of the police such that the community believed them to be habitually violent thugs biased against the community. (It's not proof, but only strong evidence, that this is an actuality.)

Wonderful

[Guy From V]

Somehow, this being covered by Gawker makes me care less about this subject than I usually do.

avoidance and countermeasures...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like a lot of their intel comes from tracking cell phone locations, and some from license plate readers.

If you plan to go to a civil protest, it's really for the best if you leave your phone at home, and walk or bike there instead of driving. I'm sure that's not perfect countermeasures, but it's a whole lot better than nothing.

Also, for the love of god don't plan anything on Facebook, Kik, or Twitter! If you're doing that, you're stupid enough you will probably be harming your own cause just out of lack of consideration of the consequences of what you are doing.

About damn time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe now people will actually realize that all the spying actually is a problem and not just those evil straight white males worrying about their 'rights' again.

Well

[koan]

All of that "security" stuff is being used against us, I thought that was common knowledge now.

Re:Well

[antiperimetaparalogo]

All of that "security" stuff is being used against us, I thought that was common knowledge now.

Stop your criminal behaviour NOW... make no mistake: the people will NOT allow animals like you to destroy them.

Re:Well

[HiThere]

Which people?

Clearly by "the people" you mean those people currently holding power. For some reason those are the people that I think *should* be held most accountable.

Re:Well

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Which people?

Clearly by "the people" you mean those people currently holding power. For some reason those are the people that I think *should* be held most accountable.

Well, in a democracy (and in the U.S.A. you/they have a democracy), "the people holding power" ARE "THE people" (directly/indirectly) - and a democracy (like that in the U.S.A.) is based in law and order, else (as my Greek ancestors adviced) becomes an ochlocracy (mob rule).

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

hey asshole.

i broke the law once. i didn't put anyone in danger. i didn't harm anyone's property. i was young and stupid

i got my jaw broke. and big piece ripped out of my leg. for hiding, because i was in trouble. just i guess as a warning.

thats what your children can expect.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dumbfuck asshole. You broke the law. You did it in such a way that it was discovered either directly by the police or by someone concerned enough to call them. There are very few laws that the police will respond to a complaint over that count as "victimless". I assume that you got your leg torn up by a police dog that they sent in because you were hiding.

Let's hear some details, because right now I think you deserved every bit of it.

Re:Well

[HiThere]

It you actually believe that, I have a fine bridge to sell you.

Re:Well

[antiperimetaparalogo]

It you actually believe that, I have a fine bridge to sell you.

If you don't actually believe that, ask some other person to sell you a ticket for some place where people believe what i believe, and will give you every thing they have for a ticket out of there!

every politician

[Presto Vivace]

at every level, needs to be asked about their views about surveillance.

Re:every politician

[ATMAvatar]

I would think they have already made it pretty clear with their voting records. The vast majority of politicians are in favor of invasive surveillance.

Ounce of prevention

[Al Al Cool J]

Maybe if they'd spent the 11 years using these resources to rein in police racism and brutality, there wouldn't be a need for protests.

Bad cops and systemic police racism are what's terrorizing the populace in cities like Baltimore - that's your terrorist threat right there. But law enforcement are also the ones running these centers. It's the old problem of who's watching the watchers.

Re:Ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops don't give a shit about race for the most part. They are assholes to everyone and will shoot you and your dog regardless of color. The news media (and their hanldlers) want you to beleve it is all about race. At least police thuggery is starting to be noticed by more of the population now, so I'm glad that they are at least putting it on the air. I guess if white people gave a shit, they would be in the streets too.

Re:Ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we just pull law enforcement out of the ghettos? That's basically what they want. Let them live in the thug cesspool they've created for themselves, and take their welfare away. Either way, it'll fix the problem. The'll either get smart and quit being thugs, or they'll self police and end up exterminating themselves.

Re:Ounce of prevention

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

They are assholes to everyone and will shoot you and your dog regardless of color.

Yeah, that's why black people are 3x as likely to be killed by the cops than white.

Re:Ounce of prevention

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"Yeah, that's why black people are 3x as likely to be killed by the cops than white."

Even if that was true (citation please), it could be down to other factors other than simply racism.There ratio of blacks living other the poverty level could be higher, so the police were simply trying to arrest all poor-looking black guys, and they could just as likely arrest a similarly "suspicious" looking white guy. Incidentally, what's the ratio for black girls to white girls getting arrested or shot?

Re:Ounce of prevention

[cascadingstylesheet]

Maybe if they'd spent the 11 years using these resources to rein in police racism and brutality, there wouldn't be a need for protests.

Bad cops and systemic police racism are what's terrorizing the populace in cities like Baltimore - that's your terrorist threat right there. But law enforcement are also the ones running these centers. It's the old problem of who's watching the watchers.

The city is run by Democrats and African Americans, and has been for a very long time. The police are run by the city.

They are messed up alright. but it isn't "racism".

Re:Ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if that was true (citation please)

It's been all over the news that last year police killed ~400 white people and ~200 African Americans. The ratio between the two groups is roughly 6 to 1. Get your calculator out. You can find more information here.

it could be down to other factors other than simply racism...

A recent investigation in Ferguson has shown that to be untrue. We're probably going to find out that it's not limited to just Missouri.

There ratio of blacks living other the poverty level could be higher, so the police were simply trying to arrest all poor-looking black guys...

Killed. Not arrested. Killed. As in: Statistically-speaking police bullets seem to have a particular attraction to dark skin. There even seems to be a trend in them entering the bodies of people who don't have a weapon of their own. You're going to have a hard time explaining away such a discrepancy in the numbers when you go out of your way to avoid exploring whether or not it's racially motivated. (It is, for some reason, awful easy to claim they deserved it, however. I guess that's why we're hearing about Freddie Gray's rap-sheet even though he wasn't even justifiably arrested.)

Re:Ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

Re:Ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

You asked for a well known fact as a citation, and refuted it with speculation without citation. how intellectually corrupt can you be?

Re:Ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words: "Sour grapes."

Re:Ounce of prevention

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops... I thought you were replying to me (the other AC that replied to him.). I apologize both for the inappropriate remark and for not reading that more carefully.

Military Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in the US, military police doesn't just protect the military bases and enforce the code. And wasn't using the military to do ordinary law enforcement during peace time a no-no in the US also?

Re:Military Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is a "standing army"

        "The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
        Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 "

All cops are being supplied with military hardware and training these days. Hell, even the IRS is being trained and being given weapons.

Re:Military Police?

[Hartree]

No, it's within the limits of the law. The National Guard Military Police units are considered to be troops controlled by the individual state (think the 13 colonies initially). In this case they were ordered onto the street by the state governor.

As for Federal troops, the Posse Comitatus Act deals with using Federal troops in police enforcement and has only been around since 1878. There has been an ongoing tension between what powers belonged to the states and what belonged to the federal government.

Now, in reality, there's relatively little difference between the Guard and federal troops, and the Guard can be "federalized" with an order from the President, and there are several other exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. But, it falls within the letter of the law.

Re:Military Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posse Comitatus Act was repealed by the passing of the National Defense Authorization act ...your information is outdated.

I have an idea

[slashmydots]

You know what might be an even better idea than tracking movement and gathering intel? DOING SOMETHING about the rioters.

Re:I have an idea

[slashmydots]

I'm head IT manager and I dislike most cops. Wow, you must be a profiler!

By Protesters they mean Rioters

[Anonymous Coward]

A huge chunk of the city has erupted in a firestorm of blood and destruction. Of course they are going to use the anti-terrorism unit that's been citing on it's asses for the past decade with nothing to do.

I don't think it's that complicated

[rsilvergun]

it's not about what laws they supported but how they voted. We're a Representational Democracy after all. Right Wing war hawks swept the elections after 9/11 and there was a huge shift to the right. If you ask Americans in general what policies we support we're a pretty left wing bunch, but we don't vote unless we're frightened. If we think everything's ok we stay away from the polls :(.

We all knew it would all be used on citizens.

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know there are not enough terrorism to justify the expense. In fact if not for this usage they would have had to manufacture an attack sooner or later.
I know I am looking into one of these type jobs get paid to do absolutely nothing for years on in.

Most of the protests and protesters were peaceful

[Anonymous Coward]

And the entire confrontation was started when the police over reacted to a peaceful protest after the funeral. This whole thing can be attributed to police racism and incompetence.

Drone war

[Britz]

Once you have the people and equipment in place, it will be used. Which is why we have an ever expanding list of people to assassinate with hellfire missles shot from drones.

A lot of people actually support the drone program. I seriously don't get it.

Re:Drone war

[Anonymous Coward]

It's cheaper than sending a jet or helicopter and is less risky than sending in ground troops. If those people are going to be assassinated away at least be efficient at it.

Re: Drone war

[Anonymous Coward]

of course it would never cross an american mind that apprehension by ground troops will cause much less collateral damage. plus you can interrogate your target.

this kind of shit strategy worked out well in vietnam, so BEST OF LUCK.

If they reality care about saving lives

[Anonymous Coward]

they should be monitoring in real time the police.

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

does is it really destroy society? Or is it the cops killing citizens that destroys society

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[AlyWest]

does is it really destroy society? Or is it the cops killing American citizens that destroys society?

Uh

[cascadingstylesheet]

Looting and smashing things is not "protest".

Re:Uh

[Anonymous Coward]

Looting and smashing things is not "protest".

Hey, check out my new page: http://kristjanrobam.890m.com . Thank You!

interested in learning some of the capabilities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden was so level, he didn't get any docs on their true capabilities.

ddrrobertduncan.com

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[Stan92057]

Or is it the drug dealers,Pimps,drive by shooters, gang member murders, that destroys American society?

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[dryeo]

Or is it the lack of jobs that cause people to fall back on illegal means of livelihood that is destroying American society?

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[tompaulco]

Or is it the lack of jobs that cause people to fall back on illegal means of livelihood that is destroying American society?

I doubt that lack of jobs causes people to turn to illegal means of livelihood. In fact, I think the cause and effect are reversed in that statement.

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[dryeo]

What do you do for a livelihood if there are no jobs available? It's rather lay down and die or create a business serving the needs around you. If the only profitable needs are illegal...

Re: interested in learning some of the capabilitie

[Anonymous Coward]

horribly complex and expensive, given that simply talking about the target while he is doing shopping or riding the bus is sufficient to scare 99,9% of population.

in other words, wild fantasy

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure the gangbangers are tired of sending out resumes so they turn to pimping/robbery/murder as the only means to support themselves.

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[tompaulco]

What do you do for a livelihood if there are no jobs available? It's rather lay down and die or create a business serving the needs around you. If the only profitable needs are illegal...

Well, I don't have a job at the moment, but among all of the things that I am considering doing, selling drugs and robbing banks are not on the list. I'd sooner stand on a corner and beg.

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[meta-monkey]

See, and that's why all the good drug-dealing jobs go to the illegals. Americans just think some jobs are beneath them. Tsk, tsk.

(good luck on your job hunt, though).

Isn't there something better to do?

[RuffMasterD]

It just baffles me that someone is willing to pay almost 100 people to sit around waiting for terrorists. Did somebody look at the accounts and think to themselves "Dude, we gotta get rid of this money somehow"? Think of all the great things you could achieve if you put 100 smart people together and gave them all the time and resources they needed. Could we figure out how to provide universal healthcare for half the cost? Create a male contraceptive pill? Or an AIDS vaccine? A battery that stores 10 times the energy in one tenth the weight? Double solar panel efficiency for half the cost? Figure out how to provide a universal minimum income for everyone without disincentivizing hard work in those who are capable? Reduce police brutality? Anything at all that could make the world even marginally better in any measurable way? Nothing?

So the most productive task we can put 100 people towards is sitting around waiting for terrorists.
Agent1: Hay man, seen any terrorists today?
Agent2: Nah. You?
Agent1: Nothing.
Agent2: I saw a cat licking itself. Check this out...
Agent1: Cool

Why is this even tolerated?

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[Stan92057]

Your absolutely right. But i will say, watching Gangland on TV has told me your wrong as well. gang members/drug dealers have said, they make far too much money to quit selling drugs far too much. It will help those who are not hardcore.

Re: Complete Bullshit.

[pnutjam]

+5
From an economic standpoint, drug dealing is the best deal around for anyone who grew up in an inner city slum. It shows more about the parent, that he doesn't get that.

Yes, the risk/reward is steep, but you do what you have to do.