Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

By Jill Colvin 4/22 12:24pm



In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex world 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.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.

“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,” he said.

“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,” he said.

The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.

“Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” he said, pointing to the use of magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.

“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”

Still, Mr. Bloomberg argued the attacks shouldn’t be used as an excuse to persecute certain religions or groups.

“What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”

I like the concept. Flora and Fauna comment rules or can responses go in thread like pics n vids?

Boston Bombing Changes Lawmakers' Views on Drone Killings of Americans on U.S. Soil

In the aftermath of the Boston bombing standoff that ended last Friday, lawmakers have changed their tune on whether a drone should ever be used to target an American citizen on U.S. soil.

The use of drones to kill American citizens is not "inherently illegal," as long as that citizen is a "combatant," a constitutional expert told a Senate panel considering the implications of targeted killings Tuesday.

"I think it's not inherently illegal to target American citizens so long as American citizens are also combatants in a relevant war. Sometimes U.S. citizens can be classified as enemy combatants" Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University School of Law, told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.

"It's not important [what technology we're using], what matters is we're choosing the right target," he said. "If we're choosing the right target then we should use the appropriate weapons, we'd be wrong to ban specific technology."

That question has become increasingly important as senators such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul consider the possibility of American citizens being targeted by drones on U.S. soil. In September, 2011, suspected Al-Qaeda operative and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen.

Last month, Paul spent 13 hours filibustering the confirmation of CIA director John Brennan because he said he was concerned that the United States could eventually target citizens on U.S. soil. Tuesday, Paul changed his tune, telling Fox Business Network that he would have approved of a drone targeting Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

"I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash … I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Even liberal senators, such as Al Franken, have considered the possibility that drones could have been useful in taking down Tsarnaev, who was eventually captured, though he suggested using a drone strike would not be ideal and is "odd for [him] to even consider."

"We had a situation in Boston, a guy holed up in a boat who for all accounts had explosives on him. They did send a robot in to take off tarp," Franken said. "Isn't it possible we could see a situation in which we might want to take that person out in a different way [with drones]?"

Retired Marine Corp. General James Cartwright, who has experience using drones overseas, said he doesn't think using a drone would have been a good idea in Tsarnaev's case.

"Inside the US there are so many other means we can use to approach the situation safely," he said. "If [Tsarnaev's] last act was to stand up and put his hands up in a standoff, to shoot him with a drone is not normally something we'd want to do."

Last month, Attorney General Eric Holder said it is "possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States."

Cruz said Tuesday that if a suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen but does not pose an "imminent threat," they should not be targeted.

"If a United States citizen is on U.S. soil and we have intelligence to suggest that individual is a terrorist involved with al-Qaeda but at that moment poses no imminent threat, if they are sitting on U.S. soil at a cafe in Northern Virginia, should we be allowed to kill that citizen?," he asked. "In my view, the answer to that question should be 'absolutely not.'"

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.

"I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash … I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.

“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”

The most important part of your link is the first quote, Hopwin. RangerDave's favorite legal website just became a spurious resource of questionable credibility. Hopefully we see no more posts lauding the legal genius of Ilya Somin from the Volokh Conspiracy.

"I think it's not inherently illegal to target American citizens so long as American citizens are also combatants in a relevant war. Sometimes U.S. citizens can be classified as enemy combatants....

It's not important [what technology we're using], what matters is we're choosing the right target....If we're choosing the right target then we should use the appropriate weapons, we'd be wrong to ban specific technology."

I also don't care whether someone was killed by a drone or a cop. Dead is dead, and both deaths were caused by the government.

I care when a top politician says it's OK to kill someone for stealing $50. Remember kids, killing for adultery or dishonor is an evil thing that the godless Muslims do in their backwards culture, but killing petty thieves? Perfectly fine, even laudable.

Yeah, no doubt. I love how someone that points a weapon at someone else, thereby threatening their life, and forcing them to hand over goods, is a "petty" thief.

To Ease Internet Snooping, Feds Promise To Ignore Privacy Violations

J.D. Tuccille|Apr. 24, 2013 7:14 pm


Federal law, codified in 18 USC § 2511, prohibits the interception of electronic communications under most circumstances without explicit legal authorization — like a warrant. But CNet's Declan McCullagh, working from documents provided by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, reports that the Obama administration is promising telecommunications companies that it won't enforce the privacy protections of the law if those companies will just play nice and vacuum up all that enticing data for the folks in Washington, D.C.

Writes McCullagh:


Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws.

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12. ...

The Justice Department agreed to grant legal immunity to the participating network providers in the form of what participants in the confidential discussions refer to as "2511 letters," a reference to the Wiretap Act codified at 18 USC 2511 in the federal statute books.

The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a "necessary incident" to providing the service or it takes place with a user's "lawful consent." An industry representative told CNET the 2511 letters provided legal immunity to the providers by agreeing not to prosecute for criminal violations of the Wiretap Act. It's not clear how many 2511 letters were issued by the Justice Department.

The law does allow short-cuts by the Attorney General and even by the "principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof," but only if a very specifically defined "emergency situation" exists. Instead of trying to find a little more elasticity in that phrase than the courts might allow, EPIC suggests that the snooping program is instead drawing off an Obama administration executive order and an earlier Bush administration presidential directive. That's right — unilateral decrees.

Reports EPIC:

The documents concern a collaboration between the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and private companies to allow government monitoring of private Internet networks. Though the program initially only applied to defense contractors, an Executive Order issued by the Obama administration earlier this year expanded it to include other "critical infrastructure" industries. The documents obtained by EPIC also cited NSPD 54 as one source of authority for the program. NSPD 54 is a presidential directive issued under President Bush that EPIC is pursuing in separate FOIA litigation.

The looming, much-criticized Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is expected to legalize all this snooping and sharing of private information, but it's not yet law. So the Obama administration is apparently just ... pretending that it is.

If you want to be upset about innocent people getting slaughtered with guns, look at where the majority of American gun violence takes place -- locations where possession of a firearm is a crime

I couldn't find the statistics on this, though admittedly I didn't get to do an extended search. What is is your source?