portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

human & civil rights | police / legal

How The Boston Bombing Is Already Being Exploited To Introduce Tyranny

Martial Law Conditioning, Escalation of the use of NDAA, Attack on Free Speech
[Original link:  http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/how-boston-bombing-is-already-being.html ]

I have no personal experience in the business of false flag terrorism, but I imagine that engineering a successfully staged terror attack to be blamed on innocent or semi-innocent parties with the goal of psychologically manipulating a population requires that one also be an accomplished storyteller. It demands an avid imagination and an organized sense of foresight. And, most of all, it requires a consistency of narrative. Without consistency, the audience's ability to suspend its disbelief is damaged, and they become disconnected from the fantasy being portrayed.

If I were the "writer" behind the "story" of the Boston Marathon Bombing, I would consider my efforts an abject failure.

The narrative of the event has changed multiple times in only a few days, following a hailstorm of conflicting observations from the government and the establishment-run media. The "villain" of the original plotline was clearly meant to be "rightwing extremism" as numerous mainstream talking heads, led by federal agency inferences, began repeating the "homegrown right wing terrorist" meme everywhere. This meme was partly abandoned after the alternative media and the Liberty Movement began its own investigation, revealing a large federal presence on the scene, including military Civil Support Teams often tied to the DHS and NORTHCOM, as well as the witnesses who observed what on-scene officials called "training exercises" during the marathon. I have no doubt that these citizen investigations forced the establishment to change the direction of their crime tale, and use Plan B patsies instead. This, however, complicated the momentum of the fiction, and created even more questions.

The Chechen brothers now implicated in the attack have been revealed as long time FBI contacts. This is a bit awkward for the FBI considering they asked the American public to help them "identify the suspects in on-scene photos" while they failed to mention that they knew EXACTLY who the two young men were already (this is what we might call a contrived story arch). Today, the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, is conveniently dead. The younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had his throat conveniently shot out. The feds are now supplying the media with "written confessions" from Dzhokhar to which there is no proof of legitimacy. For all we know the boy hasn't written a word.


The new "villains" get no voice in this drama, and thus become two dimensional characters. They exist so that we can hate them. Understanding them, or hearing their side of events from their own lips, is certainly out of the question. Poorly fleshed out antagonists are a sure sign of a poorly constructed story.

Finally, we get to the "heroes". Though the criminal elements of our federal government and adjoining alphabet agencies did not yet get the right wing patriot patsy they obviously wanted, they have still so far gleaned considerable social capital from the bombings. The point of a false flag is to frighten the population of any given nation into relinquishing freedom in the name of safety, which in the process gives the central government even more control. In the wake of the Boston attack, the establishment is having a field day... .

Martial Law Conditioning

For a few days, Boston became an Orwellian nightmare. The city lockdown and subsequent militarization was swift, though any intelligent and guilty suspect could have easily left the area before hand. This kind of response to catch only two supposed perpetrators is outlandish, unless you understand that it was not about catching the bombers. Rather, it was an exercise designed to test the malleability of the American people during a crisis scenario. In Watertown, residents were not only forced into lockdown; they were also subjected to house-to-house searches without warrant, pat downs, and numerous other violations of their 4th Amendment rights. Take note that almost everything you see in the video below is an illegal and unconstitutional action on the part of Boston authorities:

 http://youtu.be/2LrbsUVSVl8

As this was occurring, officials were consistently pushing media cameras away from the area in the name of "safety", even though media cameramen are sent into domestic shootouts and foreign warzones on a regular basis. The only real purpose that I can see to removing them from the scene was to reduce the amount of video footage depicting these illegal searches and seizures:

 http://youtu.be/cfOvHuojEB4

For those who can't grasp what has happened here, let me explain; the dynamics of liberty have just been erased. This kind of behavior on the part of government will not be limited to disasters like Boston, or New Orleans during Katrina; a precedence is being set to use martial law-style tactics anywhere for any reason at anytime. The "national security argument" is being used as a free license to institute any measure regardless of law to achieve a particular combat objective. The environment we saw in the dark days of Boston is an environment we'll soon see all over the country, and here is why...

Escalation

Boston represents a clear escalation of the use of NDAA and martial law measures in the aftermath of a security event. After the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2012, his Miranda Rights under the Constitution were denied due to "extraneous circumstances of national security". Numerous lawmakers called for the suspect to be treated as an "enemy combatant" so that he could be interrogated under the laws of war without due process: (Source)

The Obama White House has cleverly called for a civilian trial of Tsarnaev in order to reduce criticisms of its support for numerous unconstitutional measures, including the NDAA and the use of assassination against American citizens. The White House has always claimed that it would not use the combatant provisions against American citizens, but has never denied that those provisions could be applied to us. The idea is that while the president does have these powers at his disposal, we're supposed to have "faith" that he will not abuse them.

During the debate over the passage of the NDAA, Obama opposed certain language within the legislation that REQUIRED him to treat accused domestic terrorists as enemy combatants, not because he thought it was wrong, or unconstitutional, but because he wanted the OPTION to decide whether he would or would not black bag a citizen and throw him into an unspecified hole. He has simply exercised his "option" for a citizen trial, at least this time around...

In the meantime, a simultaneous and so far poorly verified "train attack" has been averted in Canada, opening the door for more discussion on something the establishment has been trying to squeeze out of the populace for years: consent for the federalized lockdown of travel and public events. Whether through TSA, or the use of state authorities under the watch of the DHS, the government has been desperately clamoring to expand the control grid out of airports and federal buildings into the bus stations, subways, trains, highways and sidewalks of America: (Source)

I believe that we will soon see much greater presence of TSA VIPR teams at large public arenas and in transportation venues outside of airports, and that the Boston Bombing will be used as a primer for this expansion. Recent comments by NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg only reinforce my belief. Bloomberg, in reference to the marathon attack, stated that:

"... we live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.

"Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11...

"We have to understand that in the world going forward, we're going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That's good in some sense, but it's different from what we are used to... "

Ironically, the only enemy out there that appears ready to "take our freedoms away" are men like Bloomberg; snakes in the grass that pay lip service to the Constitution while constantly trying to undermine it.

Free Speech Is Next

The bombings in Boston took place, apparently by coincidence, just before Oath Keepers, a national organization of current serving military, police officers, and veterans promoting adherence to their constitutional oath was to hold a large rally at Lexington Green. The Lexington Green board, one member of which had been openly hostile to Oath Keepers in the past, decided to use the crisis as an excuse to deny the rally permit already attained by the liberty minded group.

The Lexington Selectmen claimed that under the suggestions of "state officials" the rally had to be cancelled due to the "lack of police" available to secure the area and ensure public safety. However, when Oath Keepers held a brief oath ceremony at the Green in protest of the decision, a police force was sent to watch them: (Source)

This means that public safety was not the issue. Rather, safety and security were being used yet again to deny a constitutional right, and this time it was the most vital and valuable right of all - free speech.

During the height of the civil rights marches of the '50s and '60s, the exact same tactics were used to silence dissent. Black protesters were told that they could not obtain proper permits for peaceful marches because their "own safety" and the safety of the public could not be ensured. This matter of using broad hypothetical dangers as a catalyst for censorship was finally argued before the Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham. The court sided with the protesters pointing out that the use of undefined safety concerns and "prior restraint" to silence speech was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the decision has not prevented the U.S. government from slowly undermining public protest rights ever since.

The fascinating thing about incremental tyranny is the way in which na´ve members of our society try to rationalize it. They debate using logical fallacies like:

"How have your rights been violated in particular? If your rights haven't been violated, what right do you have to complain?"

And how about this gem...

"Yeah, there are problems in this country, but at least we have some freedom. In many countries, you wouldn't be allowed to complain the way you are... "

This is statist psychology at work. Freedom, in their minds, is a privilege doled out by governments, rather than an inborn attribute outside of the realm of law. They do not understand that the violation of the rights of one American is a violation of the rights of ALL Americans. They do not understand that the destruction of some constitutional protections will one day lead to the destruction of ALL constitutional protections.

The establishment and the useful idiots they manipulate want to make the "threat" the center of attention, but ultimately, the threat is irrelevant. There will always be the danger of terrorism and death. Always! And, if our government is following the Operation Gladio false flag model (look it up, folks, it was openly admitted government funded terrorism), as I believe they are, then we can count on Boston-style bombings all over the U.S. very soon.

True crisis lay in what we refuse to see, and the greatest crisis today is not the bombing of a marathon, but the destruction of our freedoms in the name of "security". The bottom line? Our civil liberties are not up for compromise. Period. Shootings, bombs, nukes, nothing! There is no rationalization that will ever make tyranny a moral enterprise. I, like many other Americans, do not care what boogeyman fantasy is paraded in front of me. We are not frightened, and we are not ignorant. No attack, no matter how heinous, will ever convince us to hand over our freedom.

homepage: homepage: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/how-boston-bombing-is-already-being.html


Fait Accompli 25.Apr.2013 13:08

ProleLump

... the law of the land has always been 'work or starve' & 'obey or die'. we have been allowed to do what was required of us under Capital, and told that was 'freedom'. wage slaves living in the largest open air labor camp in history. we have no freedom to lose, only chains to rattle.

How to respond? 25.Apr.2013 14:42

Fidelity

This is one of the most accurate articles I've read on the Boston incident. I think the familiar theme throughout all radical/unconventional reporting is that Boston is the precedent for everyone's future treatment. As this author put it, "[... ] it was an exercise designed to test the malleability of the American people during a crisis scenario. In Watertown, residents were not only forced into lockdown; they were also subjected to house-to-house searches without warrant, pat downs, and numerous other violations of their 4th Amendment rights."

For me, I look at events like this and I ask, how do we respond?

Everyone from Libertarians to Patriots to the anti-Obama Left are shocked by the incident that happened in Boston - so what is there to do?

How can we stop this tyranny from spreading?

The leftist organizing side of me says that the solution is to interject our narrative into the mainstream dialog. Essentially, utilizing propaganda techniques, actors would need to create an event that can only be reported upon in such a way that viewers have a visceral emotional reaction. There's lots of ways to do this, but brain storming off the top of my head, perhaps a video of a fake SWAT team trying to evacuate neighborhood homes (using either actors or unsuspecting people), and then explaining to those people their rights.

The anarchist side of me believes that our communities should really consider what practical community defense looks like. If cops start coming into our neighborhoods and fucking people up, start raiding homes and destroying rights, how should our community respond? The veteran side of me thinks that force should be met with force; whereas the peace activist in me says simply standing up to these abuses would be unprecedented. Either way, most neighborhoods and communities are ill prepared to deal with this contingency. If you're living in a strong community, now is the time to have these discussions, it doesn't matter if your community is pacifist or militant, you should work to formulate a plan, at least start discussions.

I don't think my suggestions have to be mutually exclusive, as in all social movements, a broad spectrum of people taking on multiple tactics is the best way forward. I'm sure there's lots of ideas of how to deal with this situation, and I'm curious to hear those ideas.

I hope that activists and organizers can appreciate just how alarming these events are. In my opinion, state actions like this trump just about any other social justice organizing happening. If the state can get away with incarcerating and detaining people without charge, if the state can get away with murdering people without charge, then virtually every other type of injustice or inequality will be amplified, while simultaneously the tools to resist these injustices and inequalities will be entirely destroyed.

As an example of this, just around the corner is May Day - people will be in the streets doing the usual parade of "Workers Rights" and "Immigrant Rights" and every day people talk about "Women's Rights" "Gay Rights" and "Animal Rights" and so many other issues - but all of these concepts are predicated on Natural Rights. When the core concept of Natural Rights is undone, as we have seen in Boston, then there simply is no Rights any more. If you're an activist working on some specific issue dear to you, perhaps you should really reconsider what the future of your movement might look like if you're not able to protest in the streets, if you're not able to speak freely, and if your leaders can be arrested at whim without charge. A police state means that political change is impossible, so if you're even slightly Liberal (even in the Classical Liberal sense) then you should have much concern about the events unfolding.

I'm not sure of the right way forward, but I do know that sitting silent is the wrong thing to do.

Good comment, Fidelity 26.Apr.2013 21:09

Shaker

Yes, we need to talk about it, and not at the prodding or steering of the media or any other segment of that population that is just an appendage or dependent upon governmental power. I was appalled at things I heard in the media from people in answer to obviously loaded questions, especially concerning martial law as an answer to these security problems. We have to remember that populations have gone through these types of things before without giving up their rights, such as the IRA bombings in Britain.

And your mention of the concept of 'natural rights' is right on.

Occupy Boston 2 27.Apr.2013 03:14

anon

pls see image
Occupy Boston 2
Occupy Boston 2

The 'New Order' Through Chaos 07.May.2013 11:58

anon

Americans are living under a hostile occupation in their own land, by their own government. Regime authorities openly declare the "homeland" a battlefield. The battle, waged by the Federal government--a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate America--targets the American people, the 'enemy:' catalogued, spied on, check-pointed, ID'd, patted down and scanned, soon-to-be-droned, run out of their homes, set in gun sights, riddled in mass shootings, OK'd for arbitrary internment and execution, or strategically blasted to oblivion in the midst of core unifying community events. No place like home, you keep telling yourselves.

18th century Bostonians lived under a hostile occupation. The practice of troops entering and searching homes without warrants was one of the catalysts of the revolution, and resulted in the drafting of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment--now a dead letter in a broken contract. The Boston Massacre was another spark, leading to the outbreak of the first revolutionary battles still commemorated there today on "Patriot's Day." This was the day of the pre-emptive? bombing and military shakedown. It was all havoc and bloody mayhem. The mark of evil.

Boston was the cradle of the revolution, of American liberty, now an incongruous sounding phrase, under the New Order « ...unless connoting corporate freedom to lawlessly dominate, control and reap the spoils. Today, lovers of personal liberty are an extremist threat. Sometimes called the Athens of America, Boston also has probably the highest concentration of brain power per head in the US -- smart freedom-lovers. Send in the tanks!

That said, it needs qualification: modern warfare has its psychological aspects, the Orwellian touch, whereby the breaking-in for martial law was welcomed by some, spangled banner-waving subjects, who faithfully followed the false flag Hollywood script, by now a give away M.O. to others.

Public pronouncements by local leaders on the meaning of the violence--at a level not seen since the last war with England--were lacking. Coachable local sports heroes lent their weighty endorsements to the story line, with curious conformity to a behaviorist, trauma-regression stimulus-response model.... As peaceable Bostonians recoiled in reaction to terrorization and full-on martial lockdown, a high profile public figure (star ballplayer) set the tone for response with his, "This is OUR ### city" remark: an infantile, sandlot reaction along the lines of "It's MY ball!," yet well suited to inviting regressive, internecine nipping in a traumatized population looking for scapegoats; a useful idiot's play of the horrible event into a divisive focus on 'us and them,' native and immigrant camps (like home and away teams), deflecting attention from the entity charged to prevent attacks, now illegally rolling tanks into town, rousting slippered residents from their homes, shutting down the city, occupying the Common and constantly changing its contradictory story. Never mind that the sportsman is himself an immigrant. Hopefully, astute Bostonians would have noticed the hypocrisy, and not fallen for base appeals to hate, which by virtue of whose interests they serve, tend to reinforce the overall impression of a stage-managed terror event, fitting a by now familiar pattern.

And then there were the amazing 'coincidences'...The JFK library fire occurring virtually simultaneously with the downtown explosions, not officially part of the attack. This is the smoking WTC building 7 of the Boston bombing--not hit but burning anyway. It's been plausibly surmised that WTC 7 was the likely command and control center for the 911 attack and as evidence of the conspiracy, had to be destroyed. After contradictory official explanations of a bomb, then fire, the Boston Fire Department later issued a conclusion that can only be called contemptuous of the concerned public: it was in fact a fire, caused by "careless disposal of smoking materials" -- a cigarette? -- in an HVAC unit -- in a building showing evidence of blast damage -- 'shattered windows' (Boston Globe). Other damage was done, significantly, to the library's archives, possibly destroying evidence from one or another of the Kennedy murders, on the 50th anniversary no less of the most notorious of these, another patsy-fronted, precedent-setting and sickening state crime.

Another incredible 'coincidence'--landing gear debris from the WTC attack suddenly appears, having gone unnoticed for 12 years in New York City's well-combed ground zero, one week following the Boston attack, "America's second 911," presumably as a reminder, to integrate the new outrage into the 'war on terror' narrative, giving the new Boston-massacre domestic-repression added-value as foreign war propaganda.

Know them by their motto: Order through Chaos.