Why Ron Paul is slamming Boston's response to the bombings
The libertarian says the military-style lockdown "should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself"
Why Ron Paul is slamming Boston's response to the bombings
By Keith Wagstaff | The Week – 8 hrs ago
Criticizing the Boston Police Department,
which has been hailed for capturing Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev, isn't exactly a PC move. Here, however, is former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on libertarian Lew Rockwell's site:
These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style
takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a
horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the
opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police
investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This
unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack
itself. [LewRockwell.com]
He goes on to criticize our modern "surveillance state," and argues that
"we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is
to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect
our liberties."SEE MORE: The daily gossip: Sylvester Stallone is bringing a Rocky musical to Broadway, and more
While Paul appears to be alone in equating the reaction to the bombings
with the bombings themselves, plenty of commentators from across the
political spectrum have voiced objections to how law enforcement shut
down the city of Boston. Comedian Bill Maher warned of a creeping "police state" on his show a few days ago, according to Politico.
And others have said the government is prone to overreaction any time
terrorism is involved. "Whenever the word 'terrorist' is mentioned in
this country, reason tends to go out the window, and many other things
go with it, too, such as intellectual consistency, a respect for civil
liberties, and a sense of proportion," wrote John Cassidy a couple of
weeks ago at The New Yorker.SEE MORE: Pop song titles are losing the love
Ross Douthat at The New York Times argues that such reactions could set a worrisome precedent if terrorist attacks become more common:
Because the Marathon bombing was such an unusual event, the city of Boston could muster a sweeping, almost crazy-seeming response without worrying that it would find itself having to do exactly the same thing six months later. But if such attacks started happening more frequently, as they obviously very well could, then last Friday’s precedent would put public officials across the country in an extremely uncomfortable bind: Repeatedly reproducing the lockdown might seem like a non-starter, yet not matching what Boston did would open you up to all kinds of scapegoating if, say, an on-the-loose bomber struck again. [The New York Times]
Last week, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) defended the city's response, telling The Boston Globe, "I think we did what we should have done and were supposed to do with the always-imperfect information that you have at the time."SEE MORE: What's next for Tim Tebow?
View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week
Other stories from this section:
- How the CIA really caught bin Laden's trail
- Oyez! Listen to major Supreme Court cases
- What we don't know about Boston
No comments:
Post a Comment