Boston Strung Up


Today, the Boston Marathon was held in Massachusetts. This was a milestone for many people because it was the first Boston Marathon that was held one year after two bombs went off at the marathon. This event was called a terrorist attack and since the event, we have been subjected to watching a super-liberal authoritarian-worshiping anti-gun media promoting a police state mentality while marketing to a group of people with the slogan “Boston Strong.”

While “Boston Strong” is a marketing slogan to capitalize on tragedy, it is also believed to be some trumped up battle cry that is hollow for a city that decided that a police state was far more preferable in finding suspects that typical police activity.

It first began with reverse 911 calls to residents scaring them about suspects on the loose and that they should “shelter in place” and expect a knock on the door by soldiers that are really police officers and that they should allow any and all searches to find the so-called bombers.

It’s a frightening situation that even the Boston Globe asks these questions in their article, ‘Unease Lingers a Year After Manhunt; Some Still Troubled by Police Tactics in Search for Suspects‘:

Nearly one year after SWAT teams and armored trucks moved through Watertown neighborhoods in search of the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects, some residents who were caught up in the traumatic events last April 19 say authorities still owe them answers.

A year later residents are now questioning the methods of what appeared to be an out-of-control police state action. Many people said they had been traumatized by what happened and they didn’t know how to address the issue at the time , and felt uncomfortable having a conversation about it because they didn’t know how the police would have reacted if they objected to the searches.

Again, the Boston Globe writes:

Early on April 19 last year, four days after two bombs near the Boston Marathon finish line killed three and wounded more than 260, suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev engaged police in a fierce gun battle in Watertown. Tamerlan was killed but his brother, Dzhokhar, escaped and became the subject of an intense manhunt, leading to an areawide shelter-in-place order until he was captured that night in a boat in a Franklin Street backyard.

Now the public is asking for answers, the police chief is saying they are limited to what they can reveal about why they immediately declared martial law while trying to find the suspects.

Regardless of what the media says and what the police are saying, “shelter in place” is a new euphemism for martial law. It was quite simply an open-ended shoot-to-kill curfew, where police searched homes and neighborhoods without a warrant.

In his article, ‘Shelter In Place Or We Will Shoot You,’ Steven Greffenius notes:

Armored vehicles, even tanks rolled through the streets of the city. Helicopters flew overhead. Thousands of armed military people swarmed over the city, in vehicles and on foot.

If you remember a year ago frightened residents were reporting snipers on rooftops and random shootings where bullets would wind up embedded in walls of homes.

While Governor Deval Patrick never made an official shoot-to-kill order of anyone ignoring the “shelter in place” order, it was evident that soldiers were ready to carry out a shoot-to-kill order if it was placed at any time during the operation.

The term “shelter in place” was first used a year ago and gave unwritten permission for military-style police forces to crawl around neighborhoods, set up sniper rifles on roofs and threaten people with death if they just stepped outside their door.

The whole operation, after the botched capture in the early morning, looked like a planned training exercise and now residents are questioning whether not it was and that it was carried out at the expense of the citizens of the United States.

Emergency management personnel in the Boston region had already rehearsed the entire “bomb” scenario before the incident at the Boston marathon, complete with how they would apprehend the suspects with a dragnet that was similar to the police state fashioned “shelter in place” policy.

Prior to the bombing, doctors, nurses, the military, fire and rescue, police authorities, and other social services were alerted to an “urban warfare” exercise that was provided by the National Emergency Planning Evaluation Program.

The program is called “Urban Shield.”

The Atlantic Cities blog wrote in their piece, ‘Boston Is One of the Best Prepared U.S. Cities to Handle a Crisis‘ back on April 19, 2013:

The drills are intended to be strikingly lifelike. Urban Shield has worked with Strategic Operations, a Hollywood effects company that also helps prepare army medics for the battlefield. (Their disaster scenario staff, Baker says, include an amputee.) … their drills aim to force officials to confront both the logistical and atmospheric challenges of a disaster.

This has been used as evidence by those who claim that the Boston Bombing combined both a real-time incident combined with a rehearsed ‘Urban Shield’ operation that conveniently ended at 7:00 PM. Some claim that was enough time for the military units to end operations, lift the curfew and have dinner with their families.

Most of the armed forces inexplicably stood down two hours or more before police found Dzhokar Tsarnaev hidden in a boat in Watertown. Does that point to a possible simultaneous drill and real-time situation where martial law would be declared and carried out because it was part of the ‘Urban Shield’ blueprint?

Various military units were needlessly deployed in Boston, including members of the Massachusetts National Guard. Now, how was it that the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 was overturned in Watertown? Simple it was probably labeled an exercise or drill.

So the “Boston Strong” were strung along and later strung up as they were victims of an exercise that was carried out during a real-time manhunt.

After the bombing, all military and police operations fell under “public safety exception,” because President Obama issued an Emergency declaration on April 17th, 2013. This way the authorities did not have to detail any of their operations at any time to the media. They did not have to disclose what was merely an exercise was and what was real-time.

This explains a lot of things including the lifting of the Miranda Rule for the captured suspects in the name of a “public safety exception” and a possible classified “Urban Shield” exercise being secretly carried out by the National Emergency Planning Evaluation Program.

This could and probably explain why several conspiracy theory sites have pointed out that what was seen in the video footage appeared to be crisis actors and other personnel that appeared to be with either a paid security agency or with the security apparatus in place to observe reaction to events in real time.

Now it is important to understand that there was no declaration of martial law made by the president and the use of the military to find the terror suspects should raise all sorts of legal red flags.

The Stafford Act, which defines what the Federal Emergency Management Agency can actually do, says that if FEMA needs to evacuate an area that it should be a “non-military” operation.

Boston Marathon Bombings: the Emergency Declaration as a State of Exception’ by Philippe Theophanidis” breaks it down like this:

On one hand, it spe­cifies that the evac­u­ation of ci­vilian pop­u­la­tion should be “non-​military”. On the other hand, it states that “passive de­fense reg­u­la­tions” can be pre­scribed either by mil­itary or civil au­thor­ities.1 Interestingly, the Act also au­thor­ized the President to utilize the re­sources of the Department of Defense ―if he de­term­ines that such re­sources are needed―for a max­imum period of 10 days.

Legally, it has not been determined if the “shelter in place” was voluntary or mandatory. This would raise the argument that the people of Massachusetts were actually intimidated or forced into participating in a needless “exercise” and not a legal and mandatory lockdown.

The governor asked people to “shelter in place” but did not mention consequences or sanctions if the order was ignored. It was only implied through intimidation that anyone not participating would be detained, arrested or shot.

It could be said that the mainstream media actually reported that a mandatory lockdown was in place – which implies consequences – even though there were none mentioned and 9,000 troops marching through neighborhoods with loaded guns in people’s faces also implied that lethal force would be used if residents did not stay in their homes.

After a year it is interesting to point out that while only a handful of residents are now speaking out about the weirdness of the events, there has not been a huge outcry over the legalities and illegalities of the operation and whether or not the people of Boston were needlessly held hostage for an urban warfare drill.

In fact after the so called apprehension of the suspects, there was a celebration and the slogan ‘Boston Strong’ became a hollow marketing scam to sell T-shirts and to raise money for more security at events like the Boston Marathon.

The question that should be asked is: Why did the public spontaneously agree to unlawful search and seizure? The compelling argument is that they were intimidated to do so and that this activity would be illegal and unconstitutional.

It is also a compelling thought that whatever happens in the United States with regard to public safety, there is no longer a moment where the police or the military should step back and evaluate the situation. There is no longer a time where the President has to declare an emergency. We are slowly losing our freedoms to the police state because we now have the attitude that whatever the military does or police do it has an air of pre-legitimacy.

Any foregone conclusion of logic or constitutional right means nothing now, because we have already accepted the United States as a battlefield where terrorists do their heinous acts.

Whatever actions the police or the military take will come across as justified, based solely on the value and assessment of threat.

That is why there are some people who will say that a whole city on lockdown was not necessary to apprehend one suspect. While others will say that it was justified because we were bombarded with the media’s threat assessment and the President’s emergency declaration and the police with their so-called “public safety exception.”

It was enough of a psy-op to welcome any and all artillery into the neighborhood to find one suspect.

Is this an example of ‘Boston Strong‘?

Perhaps it would be more truthful to call it ‘Boston Cooperative’ or ‘Boston Passive.’ How about ‘Boston Intimidated’ or ‘Boston Bullied’?

Quite simply, Boston was mislead, strung along, threatened and coerced into participating in a mass urban warfare drill that was used in tandem with a police dragnet.

The people of Massachusetts had their Fourth Amendment violated.

Private property is an unalienable right in the United States guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. The search of a private property by the military or even the police usually requires a warrant delivered by the judicial branch of the government.

It is evident that what we saw last year were the first indications of what can be done during an internal civil war. As we are seeing the same intimidation happening with private property rights in Nevada and now in Texas, it seems that Americans submit under exigent circumstances, but respond with militias and loaded guns when circumstances do not seem so exceptional.

This is a chilling reality, because if the government wants something bad enough they would have to create or even tempt these types of exigent circumstances in order to get the American people to submit to whatever they wish.

This means several “Pearl Harbor”-style events are going to be very useful for the complete abolition of constitutional rights in America.

Perhaps in the future we will see that these events are not just random acts of evil, but thoroughly planned by those who need an excuse for full-spectrum control.