In the whirlwind of events that followed the tragedy in Boston, the United States abandoned the principles it was founded on. We, as a people, gave up our liberty in pursuit of the suspected bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Albeit it was a momentary forfeiture of our freedom that was confined to the city of Boston and its surrounding area, but it revealed just how willing we are to allow fear to take over our lives.
After 19 year old Dzhokhar and his 26 year old brother Tamerlan were identified as suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing, it was understandable that a forceful response would be implemented in trying to apprehend them. If guilty, they are the culprits of a cowardly terrorist act that took the lives of three and injured nearly 200 others. And in fairness the manhunt was rightfully intensified after the two brothers were involved in the killing of an MIT police officer. A shootout with the police left the older brother dead and wounded Dzhokhar went on the run. At this point things began to spiral out of control, and a major metropolitan area was brought to a standstill by a single, injured teenager.
Millions of innocent citizens were “asked” to remain indoors and it was requested that businesses remain closed while the authorities scoured the city. But is it really a suggestive question when the people doing the asking are heavily armed police officers? Under the guise of being in “hot pursuit” of the suspect, police trampled peoples’ private property, conducting door to door searches, and in some cases pulling people out of their homes. It is somewhat dubious that this emergency pursuit rose to a level that it could supplant the the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. There is a legally recognized exemption to the Fourth Amendment called “exigent circumstance,” but probable cause is still necessary for a search of private property to take place.
Ostensibly, the police could argue that they had sufficient reason to invade people’s privacy and that they were acting in the public’s best interest. It should also be noted that no one seems to have objected to this authoritarianism, but that does not excuse such sweeping action. Panic and fear were sown by the authorities in order to obtain the acquiescence of the people.
In the end, Dzhokhar was apprehended due to the diligence of a citizen and only after the stay-indoor-restrictions were lifted. Venturing outside, David Henneberry noticed blood on the tarp that was covering his boat. He peeked inside, saw what looked like a curled-up body in a pool of blood, and called 911. Although Dzhokhar initially responded to the arrival of the police by shooting at them, he eventually gave himself up and was then taken to the hospital for his injuries. From the SWAT teams carrying assault rifles, to the roaming bands of police, to the strategically placed sharpshooters, all of them proved ineffective to the task of capturing one person.
Yet the people applaud this show of force, and officials give patently false statements like “Americans refuse to be terrorized.” Is there not terror when one of the largest cities in the country comes seemingly under siege? Even more chilling are these words from President Obama. “If anyone wants to know who we are; what America is; how we respond to evil and terror – that’s it.” It was essentially an announcement to the world that if violence is committed against the U.S. we will shelve our principles of liberty and freedom and cower under the bootsteps of authority.
America is not some authoritarian state, and to witness military style vehicles rolling down the streets of Boston was disgraceful. No one should cheer this sort of de facto martial law, regardless of how safe it makes us feel. Benjamin Franklin put it best when he wrote, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
No comments:
Post a Comment