Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Security United States

Bruce Schneier On the Marathon Bomber Manhunt 604

Posted by timothy
from the for-your-own-protection-forever-and-ever-amen dept.
Should Boston have been put in a state of lockdown on Friday as police chased down Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? Pragmatic Bruce Schneier writes on his blog: "I generally give the police a lot of tactical leeway in times like this. The very armed and very dangerous suspects warranted extraordinary treatment. They were perfectly capable of killing again, taking hostages, planting more bombs -- and we didn't know the extent of the plot or the group. That's why I didn't object to the massive police dragnet, the city-wide lock down, and so on." Schneier links to some passionate counterarguments, though. It doesn't escape the originator of a recurring movie plot terrorism contest that the Boston events of yesterday were just "the sort of thing that pretty much only happens in the movies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bruce Schneier On the Marathon Bomber Manhunt

Comments Filter:
  • Slippery slope. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dadelbunts (1727498) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @11:52AM (#43504303)
    All this showed to me sadly was how quickly people are willing to give up their own freedoms because of fear. This is a sad slippery slope we are on. While this was a horrible event, only three people died, and the whole city got shut down. Three. How long till they lockdown the city because two people die. How long untill they lockdown the city because a gunshot was heard. Untill they come into our homes to look for suspects. And the worst part is, no one will even say "No". We will welcome them with open arms, and claim that we dont mind being being forced to stay indoors, to let police into our houses whenever they want, to be under constant surveillance, because there are "madmen" on the loose and we have to catch them. Its like a mass case of stockholm syndrome.
    • Slippery slope? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:01PM (#43504365)

      The authorities said "please stay inside, don't go to work or anything". Most people did, either because of the perceived danger (desperate fugitive with explosives and guns and a willingness, even perhaps a desire, to use them against random citizens) or because they wanted to do what little they could to help authorities catch the perpetrators of the marathon bombings.

      Nobody got arrested for not staying inside. It was a temporary measure, and a ruinously expensive one in economic terms -- so they're not likely to do this again except in equally extreme situations.

      • Re:Slippery slope? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:45PM (#43504673)

        Most people did, either because of the perceived danger (desperate fugitive with explosives and guns and a willingness, even perhaps a desire, to use them against random citizens) or because they wanted to do what little they could to help authorities catch the perpetrators of the marathon bombings.

        Or the perceived danger of being mistakenly shot in the street by a trigger-happy militarized police force.

        • Re:Slippery slope? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Holi (250190) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @01:21PM (#43504937)

          I would hardly say what the Boston PD and FBI did were the actions of a trigger happy police force. All in all it was a text book example of correct police work. They stayed on target and solved this case in record time. It was the media who gave the worst show. So let's not blame the authorities on the failure of the media.

          • Re:Slippery slope? (Score:4, Informative)

            by ClintJCL (264898) <[clintjcl+slashdot] [at] [gmail.com]> on Saturday April 20, 2013 @02:40PM (#43505427) Homepage Journal
            Your hindsight analysis isn't really relevant to someone's fear about going outside (which is prior to said police work that you are analyzing in hindsight). Fact of the matter is police kill more innocent Americans every year (except one) than terrorists do. It's a valid fear, and hindsight-analysis of Boston PD and FBI after the fact doesn't make that fear unfounded, as it is founded in a far more general, verifiable truth.
          • Re:Slippery slope? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20, 2013 @02:55PM (#43505521)

            Just to be clear, "text book correct police work" is to chase a suspect through the night in a car, have them escape, lock down an entire city (not just the area they escaped, the entire city including public transport and air travel) except for dunkin donuts [boston.com], conduct completely fruitless door to door searches all day long, finally admit you aren't getting anywhere and then let the citizens find your suspect for you?

            • Re:Slippery slope? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by ColoradoAuthor (682295) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @05:01PM (#43506257) Homepage
              Did anyone else listen to this on a scanner? It's amazing how many times the dispatcher had to remind officers to exercise discipline and to follow the orders which they had been given. Apparently many officers felt compelled to converge on any suspected sighting, abandoning their assigned lookout posts. In general, I was impressed by the police response, but it was far below the standard that would be expected in many other cities.
              • by steelfood (895457)

                I think your standard of the police force is a bit too high, especially the grunts. The specialized units like SWAT and the bomb squad, the higher ups, they're probably incredibly intelligent and expertly trained. The ones standing around at the street corners doing guard duty, not so much.

          • Re:Slippery slope? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hairyfeet (841228) <.bassbeast1968. .at. .gmail.com.> on Saturday April 20, 2013 @05:05PM (#43506275) Journal

            I have to agree the Boston PD acted rationally and with the exception of not reading him his Miranda (somebody needs to be FIRED for screwing that up) they acted VERY professionally.

            For an example of cops more dangerous than the bad guy see the LAPD when that former cop was shooting cops, how many innocent people did they shoot again? 3? 4? I lost count it was bad enough that bloggers in the area were saying if you were a black man or drove a blue truck you had better stay indoors because they were emptying the gun first THEN seeing if it was the guy. Compared to that thumbs up Boston PD.

      • Re:Slippery slope? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by misexistentialist (1537887) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:49PM (#43504705)
        Since when is "ruinously expensive" an obstacle for the government? A couple of months ago Massachusetts locked down the roads of the entire state, threatening drivers with arrest, for a fairly typical winter storm. This kind of thing is already becoming the new normal, just like it's become normal for police to be indistinguishable from combat soldiers.
        • Re:Slippery slope? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by alen (225700) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @01:22PM (#43504947)

          because there are always some morons who go out into extreme weather conditions and then it costs lots of money to rescue these morons or clean up the mess after they die on the road

    • Re: Slippery slope. (Score:5, Informative)

      by CheeseTroll (696413) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:14PM (#43504463)

      The lockdown wasn't put into place after the bombings. It was enacted after the murder of a security guard, robbery, carjacking, a shootout with ~200 rounds of ammo, one of the suspects blowing himself up, and the other escaping into the neighborhood with who-knows-what for intentions or weapons.

      That, combined with the lockdown happening on a Friday (hey, 'free' day off of work!), and it doesn't shock me that people were willing to comply for a day.

      • Re: Slippery slope. (Score:5, Informative)

        by peragrin (659227) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:32PM (#43504585)

        You forgot both suspects tossing bombs and grenades at the police and at random as they drove around.

        Personally those two turned that area into a war zone. While the "whole city" was on lockdown. the bulk of it was just mass transit being shut down. I went to work yesterday. Our delivery drivers were out and about around the city of Boston on Friday.

        Sure it was shut down. but for 90% of it was a day off of work only couple of square miles were actually lockdown hard.

        And they found the guy after they lifted the lockdown and people started looking around for damage.

      • Re: Slippery slope. (Score:5, Informative)

        by dadelbunts (1727498) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @01:10PM (#43504847)
        We have shootouts and high speed chases all the time here. They dont lock down the city.
      • by Concern (819622)

        200 whole rounds of ammo? I cringe in wide-eyed fear. The NYPD once spent 41 rounds of ammo shooting at a single unarmed civilian (reference [wikipedia.org]).

        Cops are way more likely to kill you by accident than terrorists are on purpose (reference [washingtonsblog.com]).

        If the cops really thought it was dangerous outside, instead of just putting on security theater, they'd have let the donut shops close too (reference [popehat.com]).

        The war on terror is like real war, except that we have millions of people in our "army" and they have dozens in theirs. Peanu

    • Re:Slippery slope. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:14PM (#43504471)

      I live in Boston and I don't see what "freedoms" I just gave up. This was a one-time deal; it does not have to be the standard response for every event. If a police lockdown became overkill and burdensome for some set of circumstances, and possibly encouraging to terrorists, then residents would let their officials know that they need to lighten up in the future. This was not one of those times.

      Sometimes you guys seem so intent on spinning off on your political abstractions that common sense is ignored. The lockdown made it a lot easier for law enforcement to do their jobs without worrying about crowd control, collateral damage, the suspect blending into the street scene, etc. And the police did do an excellent job.

      • Re:Slippery slope. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dadelbunts (1727498) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:18PM (#43504497)
        Thats why the suspect was found AFTER the lockdown, by a guy walking around outside his house.
        • Re:Slippery slope. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SuperKendall (25149) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:41PM (#43504649)

          Which doesn't make the lockdown make any less sense. As it turned out the thinking was correct; the suspect was on the loose hiding at someones house. The guy was pretty lucky that the second suspect was shot up; otherwise had the suspect been more aware he could easily have killed the guy when he went to look in the boat. Happily it didn't turn out that way.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by smellotron (1039250)

          Thats why the suspect was found AFTER the lockdown, by a guy walking around outside his house.

          That doesn't actually mean that the lockdown had no effect. At the end of the lockdown, more people than usual were in very familiar territory (home vs. work or transit); everyone was vigilant and focused. Had there not been a lockdown, maybe the "background noise" of daily comings and goings would have been enough to mask the guy's escape.

    • by sribe (304414)

      While this was a horrible event, only three people died, and the whole city got shut down. Three. How long till they lockdown the city because two people die.

      Bullshit. They locked down the city because after the 3 people died there was still a nut running around shooting at people and throwing bombs indiscriminately.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tp1024 (2409684)

      Absolutely. And it wasn't just the lockdown of the whole city, but also a "public safety exception" voiding the constitutional right to have a lawyer. I think we witnessed an object lesson in history. How did fascism take over Germany? One perfectly justifiable step after another. Why didn't people object? Only few did and all the others said "shut up".

      It was a bleak day. [wordpress.com] That I won't forget. [wordpress.com]

      • Re:Slippery slope. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Wrath0fb0b (302444) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @01:28PM (#43504999)

        There is no Constitutional right to have a lawyer during questioning, only a Constitutional right not to have any statements you make during such questioning introduced at trial. Since they have ample other evidence by which to convict Tsarnaev without using any such statements, there is no particular reason to Mirandize him. We can just accept that the statements made without advising him of his rights are not admissible in court.

        See this excellent summary by Orin Kerr [volokh.com] for a bit of explanation of how it actually works (as distinct from how you or I or him believe it ought to work). You can also read the Supreme Court's decision in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) [google.com] directly, if you prefer,

      • Re:Slippery slope. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ultranova (717540) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @04:59PM (#43506243)

        How did fascism take over Germany?

        By spreading panic by making absurd claims about how their lifestyle was being destroyed by the powers that be, thus necessiating a revolution to return to their glorious mythical past. You know, a bit like you're doing here.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by WilyCoder (736280)

      Step back a minute and take in the whole situation: terrorist bombing, assassinated cop, carjacking, robbery, shoot out with police involving more bombs, and then escape by one of the suspects.

      Its clear to me that the only goal the suspects had in mind was to cause harm to society in any way possible. So what does society do? It reacts in order to nullify that threat.

      When the city goes on lock down, that is to help the police do there job, but it is also to secure the citizens. Given how the situation playe

      • Re:Slippery slope. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by femtobyte (710429) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @03:48PM (#43505841)

        In retrospect, it's interesting that the bomber didn't kill more people when they actually had the chance. During their escape, they held up a convenience store and stole a car --- without shooting the robbery victims. An interesting artifact of human psychology, even at its most twisted: the terrorists willing to blow up random strangers weren't willing to look a shopkeeper or driver in the eye and shoot them; in panicked flight and personal contact with potential victims, they showed far more restraint and respect for human life than their premeditated impersonal cold-blooded murders just hours before.

  • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Saturday April 20, 2013 @11:59AM (#43504353)

    Two devices went off, police were looking for two suspects... there was no particularly strong evidence that there would be dozens of people out there or something. I suspect it comes down to just the word "terrorism" causing people to refuse to apply the kind of logic they normally apply.

    I've lived in neighborhoods where people were shot, and the gunman was an fugitive. It was more likely in those cases that there could be wider involvement of a larger group, because often people who perpetrate shootings are gang members. While it's rare, occasionally these fugitive scenarios actually do end up in a shootout that involves a dozen people. Yet, the police don't lock down all of Atlanta every other week just in case.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Two devices went off, police were looking for two suspects... there was no particularly strong evidence that there would be dozens of people out there or something. I suspect it comes down to just the word "terrorism" causing people to refuse to apply the kind of logic they normally apply.

      I've lived in neighborhoods where people were shot, and the gunman was an fugitive. It was more likely in those cases that there could be wider involvement of a larger group, because often people who perpetrate shootings are gang members. While it's rare, occasionally these fugitive scenarios actually do end up in a shootout that involves a dozen people. Yet, the police don't lock down all of Atlanta every other week just in case.

      I think the key here is predictability. Neighbourhood criminals have known haunts. We were dealing with people who were extremely mobile and armed with explosives. We didn't know who their partners in crime (if any) were, we didn't know where they were likely to go. They had been located in downtown Boston, Cambridge, and Watertown. Their last known location was Watertown, and that's where the actual door-to-door searching was going on, but the danger was that they'd break free and head in a random directi

    • by Holi (250190)

      Except your average gun man/gang member isn't tossing around grenades.

    • by fermion (181285)
      I see your point, and the issue is partially terrorism. Note that Boston was not locked down until the terrorists surfaced again, and until there was a realization that they had additional bombs

      I will just make two statements here. FIrst, if people had been roaming around as normal, then there would have a chance that that a person with a bomb could have taken many hostages and, theoretically, escaped or caused much more damage. Two, by not keeping everyone at home, it became easy to check on those who

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:03PM (#43504381)

    If two people with makeshift bombs can cause a major city to go on lockdown, isn't the message to terrorists that a multi-city disruption -- say, shutting down from Boston to Philly -- wouldn't take very many people or that much coordination?

    • by icebike (68054) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:20PM (#43504525)

      If two people with makeshift bombs can cause a major city to go on lockdown, isn't the message to terrorists thatmedia multi-city disruption -- say, shutting down from Boston to Philly -- wouldn't take very many people or that much coordination?

      Where are my mod points!?

      Regardless of constitutional issues, this is the central lesson learned by terrorist wannabes due to this event.

      It wouldn't take much imagination to see even small two man teams in different population centers to disrupt the entire eastern seaboard by bombing Christmas shopping or major sports events or campaign rallies or whatever.

      "Shelter in Place" could become a phrase we come to detest. Especially if the nanny statists decided to let social media solve all crimes in the future.

      • It wouldn't take much imagination to see even small two man teams in different population centers to disrupt the entire eastern seaboard by bombing Christmas shopping or major sports events or campaign rallies or whatever.

        They've already done that. [bbc.co.uk]

        It might not work out so well if they tried that in the US.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      If two people with makeshift bombs can cause a major city to go on lockdown, isn't the message to terrorists that a multi-city disruption -- say, shutting down from Boston to Philly -- wouldn't take very many people or that much coordination?

      Our only real defense against terrorists is that terrorists are A) stupid and B) incompetent. Terrorists fixate on certain targets, such as airplanes. We all know that if you wanted to disrupt air transportation these days, the airplane itself is one of the least vulnerable targets, but they keep focusing on the airplanes.

      As for the stupid part, Wile E. Coyote could do better than most of them.

      Only where something new and radical is tried do they tend to have success, and that generally isn't repeatable. We

      • by Catmeat (20653)
        Our only real defense against terrorists is that terrorists are A) stupid and B) incompetent. Terrorists fixate on certain targets, such as airplanes. We all know that if you wanted to disrupt air transportation these days, the airplane itself is one of the least vulnerable targets, but they keep focusing on the airplanes.

        There are excellent reasons for them fixating on airplanes. If you tale a look at the history of non-vehicle suicide bombings, you'll find they rarely kill more than a dozen or so peopl
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Osgeld (1900440)

      what is this lockdown people keep mentioning?

      they shut down public transportation, and asked that people stay inside, not like the fucking army came in and blocked all roads and placed a guard at your door with the threat of death

      • by KGIII (973947)

        They did too! That's exactly what they did! I don't even live in Boston but I'm contacting ACLU and am going to sue them for violating my right to not be inconvenienced.

        It cost them a marginal amount of money (people will do their shopping and make up the work on Monday). People were asked and willingly stayed inside but some where inconvenienced probably, surely, well... I haven't actually heard anyone complain or anything but I'm sure someone was.

        My concern is them potentially removing people from their h

  • Home of the Fearful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jazman_777 (44742) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:03PM (#43504385) Homepage
    America is a land of fear. It is easy to paralyze us, we are already just short of paralyzed by fear all the time anyway.
    • by kestasjk (933987) * on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:39PM (#43504625) Homepage
      As a non-American I find this weird:
      • A couple of people execute a plan to blow hundreds of innocent athlete/spectators' limbs off,
      • The police use technology to work with the public to catch/kill them in a matter of days with no additional casualties,
      • Some Americans then go wallow in self-hatred over either
        • How scared they are of the police intruding on their freedom,
        • Or how easily scared they are.

      I can't believe people are saying to the effect of "only three people died, less than the deaths caused by normal crime." Surely there is a difference between those looking to maim hundreds of innocent people and the sum of everyday crime?
      How can people be so wishy-washy about this? A couple of complete assholes have just ruined hundreds of peoples' lives, and people feel conflicted about the manhunt that ended in their death and arrest?

      • by amiga3D (567632) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @01:14PM (#43504883)

        I feel no conflict. I thought this one of the few times I've seen government act effectively. I was pretty impressed by the way the officials in Boston handled the situation and especially the way local, state and federal agencies acted in concert. My congratulations to my Northern neighbors on a job well done.

    • by obarthelemy (160321) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:41PM (#43504643)

      Yes. But luckily, you've got plenty of guns, which once again proved their usefulness on this occasion, by... Oh, never mind.

    • America is a land of fear.

      That is not at all true. Americans simply have good common sense in times of crisis. Just look at how many people were running to HELP after the bombings, knowing there could be more.

      It is easy to paralyze us

      Not at all, we just have enough sense to know when it's a good time to stand still when we see a snake, long enough for some other guy to get a rock...

      "Look before you Leap" is not a motto that derives from fear, but from experience that we'd like facts before acting unreaso

    • by jopsen (885607) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Saturday April 20, 2013 @01:09PM (#43504845) Homepage
      Maybe, but notice that the fear was created, not by terrorist, but by:
      1) Politicians scoring a cheap leadership point, and
      2) The media pushing ads with a "good" story,

      This might very well have been way out of proportions.
      I think the politicians eat it because it was great chance to show leadership, and the media loved the idea of doing live coverage for hours on end...

      End result, more fear... but I'm not sure it was the terrorist who scared you.
  • Oh the iirony. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:12PM (#43504449)

    The guy was found when they let people out of their houses and one of them stumbled across the guy. If they had let people out earlier would he have been found earlier? Funny thing is if they had waited until night to lift the ban he might have slipped away.

    What's more consider what happened. The people hid from one militant guy. Compare this to 1776 when British militants walked on a town. Citizens decided to gather together to oppose them despite the risk to their lives (, and many did die ). Boy how this country has changed.

     

    • Re:Oh the iirony. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by heypete (60671) <pete@heypete.com> on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:32PM (#43504583) Homepage

      The people hid from one militant guy.

      I wouldn't really say that most people were *hiding* -- that is, I don't think they were staying inside due to fear of the bad guy -- but rather trying to let the professionals (the police and federal agents) who were searching for this very dangerous bad guy to do their job with the least interference and confusion possible.

    • by thomst (1640045)

      MouseTheLuckyDog blathered:

      The people hid from one militant guy. Compare this to 1776 when British militants walked on a town. Citizens decided to gather together to oppose them despite the risk to their lives (, and many did die ). Boy how this country has changed.

      You'e conflating the term "militant" with "military". The Boston Massacre (which turns out to have been no such thing - in actuality, the British soldiers were fired on from the crowd, which means they returned fire in self-defense - but the winners get to write the histories), known to the British as the Incident on King Street, occurred on March 5, 1770, when a detachment of eight British soldiers was sent to defend a sentry, Private Hugh White, who was surrounded by a mob of se

  • by bcrowell (177657) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:14PM (#43504465) Homepage

    The worst outcome of this isn't necessarily that Boston got locked down, although that's definitely worth discussing.

    The worst outcome is that lockdowns are becoming more and more common, far out of proportion to the actual risk. Once it becomes normal to lock down an entire city in response to a very real and significant threat, it then becomes much easier to feel normal about it when we lock down an entire college campus because a mentally ill homeless person made some faculty or staff uncomfortable. It becomes normal to do what some community colleges in my area are doing, which is to have an active shooter drill once a year in which adult college students are locked in a dark room for 30 minutes and told they can't leave. (This passive response is, BTW, not at all in line with what experts recommend in such a situation.)

    Destroying 30 minutes of instruction for a whole campus and violating students' civil rights is way out of proportion to the risk of getting killed by an active shooter, which for a college student is on the order of 1 in 300,000 per year. A college student's risk of being a victim of rape, robbery, or assault is about 1 in 100 per year, but we're uncomfortable dealing with that -- in fact, there is a wave of lawsuits right now by women who say their rights were violated when their colleges refused to take action about their being raped.

    To use an analogy suggested by Scheneier, active shooters and the marathon bombing are like shark attacks, and other violent crimes are like dog bites. The number of people killed by dogs every year is much, much greater than the number killed by sharks. But we find shark attacks much more psychologically compelling.

  • rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:20PM (#43504523)

    This entire thing was ridiculous and made so by the police. 2 men shut down one of the largest cities on earth. These sorts of attacks happen all the time most other parts of the world. Imagine living in Israel or Syria. If they ever get 20 guys again like 9/11 and they all just get rifles and randomly start shooting people all over the country like the Washington sniper did this countries going to become a police state if the police react like this. More people were killed in Massachusetts in the past week in car accidents then by these bombers. Where was the police presence to prevent those fatalities? Oh, that's right, they were busy firing thousands of rounds at a 2 guys in a residential neighborhood.

    • Re:rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kestasjk (933987) * on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:55PM (#43504753) Homepage

      If they ever get 20 guys again like 9/11 and they all just get rifles and randomly start shooting people all over the country like the Washington sniper did this countries going to become a police state if the police react like this.

      Right; more people are killed by car accidents every day than by 20 snipers taking out people at random across the country. I say in that situation the police should ignore the snipers and go look for drunk drivers and speeding!

      Frankly until terrorists are killing more people within the US than cancer and heart disease put together, I don't see much point going after it.

  • "Please stay indoors and off the roads unless you have a really good reason."

    "May we search your house for him?"

    Holy shit! The horrors!

    • "Would you like to stay home from work and take the day off watching CNN . . . ?"

      "May we search your house for him?"

      "Please search my house. As well as the terrorist, please keep an eye out for an old Netgear router that I can't find anymore. Would you mind taking the trash out on your way out . . . ?"

  • by snikulin (889460)

    I guess the feds are worrying about a hypothetical chain "Chechens - Russia - WMD".
    I am not informed enough to judge their merits.

  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @02:49PM (#43505465)
    If we outlaw pressure cookers,
    only outlaws will have pressure cookers.
  • by The Master Control P (655590) <ejkeever@@@nerdshack...com> on Saturday April 20, 2013 @03:45PM (#43505815)
    Option 1: Police/govt over-react, nothing bad happens: Grumbling about over reaction
    Option 2: Police/govt over-react, something bad still happens: Grumbling that still not enough was done
    Option 3: Police/govt under-react, nothing bad happens: No problem
    Option 4: Police/govt under-react, another attack happens: Everyone "responsible" as good as burnt alive at stake

    In light of the potential outcome of option 4 (which based on what these psychopaths did before and during capture was altogether probable) risk-averse structures, like governments, will choose to over-react every time.
    • Option 4: Police/govt under-react, another attack happens: Everyone "responsible" as good as burnt alive at stake

      That's pretty much why we can't get rid of the TSA.

  • by spoot (104183) on Saturday April 20, 2013 @09:47PM (#43507345) Homepage

    THIS! Two guys with pressure cookers shut down a major american city, innocent American's were deprived of their 4th Amendment rights (just as one example, stripped naked guy [youtube.com]) Endless pictures of paramilitary police [go.com] and armored personell carriers [wbur.org] roaming the streets of Boston [wordpress.com] Door to door searches [theblaze.com] by police that essentially are indistinguishable from military without search warrants brandishing firearms [salon.com] ... You tell me who won? It certainly isn't the American citizen.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (2) Thank you for your generous donation, Mr. Wirth.

Working...