Hey, there! Log in / Register
By the 23rd century, respect for the Fourth Amendment had become universal
By adamg on Thu, 07/04/2013 - 6:28pm
State Police didn't just ensure that Fourth Amendment protesters dispersed "peacefully" at the Esplanade today, they took pictures of some of them to post to Twitter, including this representative from Star Fleet.
A more conventionally attired demonstrator:
The Globe reports on a protest against the NSA outside the Old State House.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
23rd
Typo?
Fixed, thanks
I started to write "24th," but then figured I'd better check, just in case. Changed the number, but not the "th."
Well, I think that uniform is
Well, I think that uniform is from Next Generation, which took place in the 24th century. It's probably not worth splitting hairs about that though, since the original series is pretty liberal too.
Hmmm
Someone must have messed with the temporal prime directive... Because he's late.
http://web.mit.edu/adorai/timetraveler/
Then again quantum subspace calculations to slingshot around the sun and borg temporal distortion fields can be finicky things. I hope someone asked him when the next Sox world series win was going to be.
Kudos to this kid...that's
Kudos to this kid...that's actually one of the better fan "uniforms" I've seen in a while. Most of them are God-awful/laughable?
Supposedly the fact that the
Supposedly the fact that the staties tweeted the Star Trek guy's picture is a horrible breach of privacy. zo much that other news and protest organizations have retweeted the same picture hundreds of times. How horrible!
No, not privacy
You're in public, you're fair game, even if the photographers are wearing French and electric blue. It is, however, a bit disconcerting to know that people who can arrest you and throw you in a cell are taking your picture while you're exercising your First Amendment rights.
Smokie the Borg?
Discussing the 4th Amendment with a Commonwealth cop is like discussing poetry with the Borg. If the cop was a Vogon on the other hand that would be a different matter.
Idiots...
You don't agree with the searches, then stay home. I don't agree with them, but you don't see me dressing in my clown suit and protesting at the Esplanade on a day like today.
I mean,what's the sense?
I know, right?
Expressing your constitutional rights on the birthday of the country? How inconsiderate!
I know, right?
Of course, you can see the glee in the faces of the tools of the power structure as they stand there in full uniforms and fatigues as they tear through every little bag and cooler! Why, no one would ever think to protest at the State House or the nations capital on this most holy of national holidays and why would they when they can bring their concerns about the loss of our liberties to a bunch of people who have been broiling in the sun all day?
why would they when they can
why would they when they can bring their concerns about the loss of our liberties to a bunch of people who have been broiling in the sun all day?
Well, the broiling staties -- who aren't the only ones out in the heat -- are the ones doing it. They could just refuse. That they don't makes them just as culpable.
Yes. police officers are well known for their
almost constant refusal to obey orders, right? Also, I was referring to the crowd broiling, not the cops. I addressed the cops broiling in the first sentence.How many years did you say you were in law enforcement again?
And culpable in what, pray tell?
Careful what you wish for..
So conversely, would you be okay with rank-and-file officers/staties unilaterally deciding to arrest and charge people with crimes that the governor/legislature/state police supt. say aren't crimes? I mean, if the elected officials make the "wrong" decision an are okay with actions that should be criminal, the staties should just "refuse" to not arrest people, right?
When you're at work, do you
When you're at work, do you have a habit of just refusing to do what your boss tells you to do?
Yes, I do and I have, if I'm
Yes, I do and I have, if I'm asked to do something immoral. I also might not do what my boss tells me to do if it's illegal, depending on what it is.
I try to be a moral person, and I will not throw that away, or pretend that I'm not responsible for what I do, just because someone tells me to.
Maybe you are pleased with yourself for just following orders, but some of us know better.
Broiling
It might be reasonable to suggest that people protest politely, but not that people forgo expressing their rights.
Since when did you become the new
NotWhitey?
1. People have a right to
1. People have a right to gather in public places without the fear of being blown up.
2. 4th Amendment rights are not absolute... as anyone who has ever cleared Logan customs knows.
Don't disagree
But it's also been proven this security theater is less than useless, and a very expensive way to trick people into a false sense of security.
Do we need to bring up how many times guns and explosives were smuggled past Logan TSA and police since 9/11?
-Benjamin Franklin
If you're that worried about your safety, stay home and watch the boob tube from your bubble. Life is dangerous, and there's a 100% fatality rate over time. Deal with it.
Security theater vs security
Considering that there was an actual plot to set off bombs at the esplanade I'm not sure this falls into security theater. I agree that guys with unloaded machine guns standing in the street is a stupid waste of resources but searching bags at a major event that has had a threat made against it is not.
What if...
What if I told you that there has been an actual plot to bomb the Esplanade for the past 20 years, even prior to September 11, 2001...the date when the world suddenly changed completely.
There hasn't been, to my knowledge, but what if there had? A plot that was never acted on for a number of reasons, none of which had to do with the level of security details. Thus, making this year an example because you know about the plot this time (but not the other 19 years) doesn't mean it was worth upping the security state.
I keep a rock in my pocket. It's a magical rock that prevents me from ever dying in a terrorist act. It's got a 100% proven rate. That's better than any security system we have ever installed in this country and it costs far less. That's why it's security theater. Because my anti-terrorist pocket rock does a better job.
plot
>> there was an actual plot to set off bombs at the esplanade
From a guy in a prison hospital bed and his brother who's currently in a hole in the ground.
So what's your point, anon?
Right now
in a desert, halfway across the world; someone is thinking of killing Americans.
And so we should stop what were doing, and stop living our lives? For what? Some asshole fucking his goat, his male cousin, and preaching the immorality of women showing their face and learning arthritic?
Please.
The Brits went about heir business when they were a V2 rocket away from a very bad day, every day. My grandfather put his life on the line during WW2. New England mariners had to deal with German Uboats attacks off our coasts daily, and went about their lives. Our forefathers dealt with the only alien occupying force in our young nation, shelling right from Boston harbor.
I think we can keep some thug criminals with gunpowder and cleaning chemicals in perspective.
Stop being such a dope, and worry about living, instead of fearing death and the false safety you never really have in the first place. We have bigger, more important things to worry about.
I've never actually been to
I've never actually been to the fireworks on the Esplanade before....but I'm trying to get the sense of where the controversy is coming from. Were the security measures more stringent than what the Red Sox, Comcast Center, or the Garden have done post 9/11? i.e. pat down, inspection in a bag/cooler? They've never done these things in the past?
The three venues you mention
The three venues you mention are privately owned, and their owners can institute whatever measures they like. We can choose with our wallet to follow those rules or not deal with them.
The Hatch Shell and Esplanade are public facilities, and the money used to implement any so-called security measures is our money.
If you're that worried about
If you're that worried about being searched, stay home and watch the boob tube from your bubble.
Nope
People don't have any rights regarding fear. I thought this was the home of the brave? You're clueless if you think clearing customs is covered under the fourth amendment.
Which right is that?
Where do you figure this is true?
We should have the right to gather in public places. Whether you fear dying in that public place (by bomb or by heart attack or by anything else) is entirely self-controlled. There is nothing a security state will do for you to alleviate that fear except give you false hope. Secondly, it is exactly that fear that the enemy hopes you have so that you waste precious time, energy, money, and everything else in order to protect yourself.
But the problem is that you don't solve anything with all of that protection. So you think you've discouraged them from blowing up the Esplanade yesterday so you could gather in a public place without fear of being blown up? Great, and the next time you want to gather, say, at Shakespeare on the Common? In a movie theater? On the MBTA going to work on a Wednesday? Stuck in traffic inside of the Big Dig? In line to get into the very security state that you think is going to save you at the next event?
Unless you're going to institute the same level of discouragement every time you gather...both intentionally and unintentionally...then you're going to be exposed to some small (and it's extremely small) possibility of being bombed by a terrorist.
You don't have a right to live without fear. You have an imperative to do so. We've given up by assuming we have a right to live without fear because it's easier to think someone should have done something...or someone should do something to save us.
More security = more overtime
Overtime on a holiday, even better! I'm not feeling so bad for the guys in uniform...well a little bit for the guy in the Star Trek uniform who looks more like a red shirt ensign.
Not an ensign
The gentleman in the picture is a lieutenant from the later 24th century (cf the rank insignia on his right collar). His gold uniform indicates he is staffed in either engineering, operation or security.
The lack of sidearm implies that he is a member of one of the first two branches mentioned. The fact that he's wearing non-shaded glasses implies he is in engineering as members of that branch often employ external eyewear for either protection while working or for enhanced visual data collection.
Someones
been enjoying the TNG Bluray HD restoration
(guilty as charged too)