Mayor Bloomberg on people trying to take away our freedoms
Here’s Mayor Bloomberg:
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 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.”
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.
Tags:
23. April 2013 at 17:03
sigh.
23. April 2013 at 17:17
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.”
oh delicious irony
23. April 2013 at 17:19
I wonder if he finds his last line as ironic as I do.
Unfortunately, I doubt it.
23. April 2013 at 17:21
I should expand on that. A friend’s uncle once told him, the most striking change in daily life after Hitler invaded Austria, was that the streets of Vienna suddenly were safe. That was actually the big selling point of the Nazis in the beginning.
What I mean to say is, an awful lot of the general public wouldn’t get, or doesn’t care about, the irony you’re pointing out so rightly. They will vote for people who promise to make them safe from crime through invasive policing, and safe from poverty through invasive taxation and redistribution.
23. April 2013 at 17:33
Unfortunate that the electorate did not reject rhetoric of this ilk a decade ago (or several decades ago).
“___________, 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.”
Names of politicians from both sides of the aisle could be penciled into that space. Unfortunate that the electorate did not reject rhetoric of this ilk a decade ago (or several decades ago).
“The Authorization for Use of Military Force:
. . .
Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting.
The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting.
23. April 2013 at 17:45
Oh quit being an ideologue. This is the most pragmatic and utilitarian response, given the growing police state we have to deal with, and given there exists regular civilians who seem to have no problems with coercion against innocent people. MMs should understand this, they’re in the same group!
I say we should target a 5% growth rate in the number of people imprisoned without due process. Seeing as how this police state activity isn’t going away any time soon, let’s all join in the chorus for NGDILT (nominal gross domestic imprisonments, level targeting).
If the state did this during the 1990s and 2000s, they very well could have stopped the acts of terror that non-NGDILT has likely caused, from McVeigh’s to Tsaraev’s atrocities. Sure, NGDILT isn’t perfect. No human system is perfect. But the state could have jailed those who committed acts of terror, if the state would only stop coddling and stop being influenced by the demagogue libertarians, who are partly to blame for the lack of 5% NGDILT that could have alleviated the destruction from terrorism.
23. April 2013 at 18:48
I repeat: 30,000 Americans die in auto accidents every year. Another 11,000 are murdered with guns.
Terrorists, in their best year ever, killed 3,000. Since then, maybe a handful every year, and a mere three at the Boston Marathon.
Two sadly demented nutcases armed with pressure cookers do not represent a threat to America.
I do not want to sacrifice any freedom or convenience at all, in the wake of the events in Boston or any other terrorist attack.
Why is it people will tolerate any amount of plain-vanilla gun violence in the name of freedom, but become quivering ninnies in the face of one-off terrorist attacks?
23. April 2013 at 20:35
@Benjamin Cole
>Why is it people will tolerate any amount of plain-vanilla gun violence in the name of freedom, but become quivering ninnies in the face of one-off terrorist attacks?
Because the media tells us to.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
23. April 2013 at 21:40
Yes Geoff, throwing people in prison is morally equivalent to stabilising the value of the uni of account. Both violate the non-aggression principle, so both are bad! Why didn’t you say so earlier! You’ve opened my eyes!
23. April 2013 at 22:22
I hate that guy. He’s such a petty statist he wants to take away people’s rights to drink soda. What freedoms does he think he’s protecting exactly?
23. April 2013 at 23:00
Looking from a point of a person living in a “social” country where every freedom “guaranteed” is revocable by a law (as stated in the constitution) – I really can’t believe what the politicans did to an amazing institution as US constitution
Greets!
23. April 2013 at 23:18
Xtophr–
Well, maybe. The government and the media.
As i said in a previous post, the explosion as Texas killed many more, and has been forgotten already.
BTW, over at the American Enterprise Institute, they are saying the Boston pressure cooker bombs are a reason we need to beef up military involvement overseas…so do not forget the role of groups with ties to security budgets….
24. April 2013 at 04:56
Mayor Bloomberg is a freedom fighter. He’s fighting for your freedom to do exactly as he says.
24. April 2013 at 05:45
I don’t care about the soda ban, it’s the ban on painkillers for poor people in ERs that bugs me.
24. April 2013 at 05:52
Hell, as far as the soda serving restrictions and painkiller restrictions go (among others) I’d tolerate them (begrudgingly)if they were enacted and promoted in a manner consistent with our democratic process (I don’t care about what our system technically is, we all know what is meant by “democratic process”. However Hizzoner has gone about enacting these policies via mechanisms that, should a majority of the residents of the city ever fully understand how they were utilized (such as ramming policies through the Board of Health), would cause a mob to descend on Gracie Mansion almost immediately. He’s a fascist, no ifs ands or buts about…
But don’t let him hear your complaints, lest he label you a worrisome pest and sick his so-called “private army” (his words) on you! :p
24. April 2013 at 09:46
Ben J:
“Yes Geoff, throwing people in prison is morally equivalent to stabilising the value of the uni of account. Both violate the non-aggression principle, so both are bad! Why didn’t you say so earlier! You’ve opened my eyes!”
Perhaps it would behoove you to consider what would happen if people started ACTING contrary to the “stabilising the value of the uni[t] of account”. Suppose they opted themselves out of the dollar taxation laws, and the dollar legal tender IP laws, for that is how someone can avoid participating in the “stabilising the value of the uni[t] of account” rule from the government.
They’d be sent to prison.
So yes, putting people in prison is morally equivalent to putting people into prison.
Thanks for the tip about your advocacy.
24. April 2013 at 14:32
Why does Bloomberg want to change the “interpretation” of the Constitution?
If the country is so compelled by this pressing “need” why is the amendment process not enough?
What’s that, you say? Because there is not a snowball’s chance in hell the country would support the amendments Bloomberg seeks?
Then that should be the end of it.