In the news

Was the point not that they were seen leaving the bags near/at the bomb sites? Or were seen near there with the bags and then without them?

Natural News has now confirmed that at least five private military contractors were operating on scene at the Boston marathon, and that they all carried black backpacks which look very similar to the backpack carrying the pressure cooker bomb (see pictures below).
So as far as they are willing to suggest, no.

And from the comments:

sigh
Love the conspiracy nuts
Those guys are members of the MA Guard’s 1st WMD Civil Support Team which is based out of Natick. They, along with about 800 other Guardsmen of MA, were on duty that day. As is usually the case in any large event. I worked dozens of similar events the 7 years I spent on a Civil Support Team…in the same “uniform”. After an explosion like that..the first thing you want to do is determine what is NOT there…the first responders are concerned (rightly so) about dealing with the casualties. What they aren’t concerned about is radioactive substances, chemicals or bio agents which may have also been released…and now those get drug around the city and into hospitals. Which is where teams like the WMD CST step in to assist. By rapidly IDing what is or is not there and feeding that to the first responders. Nothing nefarious about it and in fact quite critical to the well being of everyone there.
Sorry to bust the conspiracy bubble…they are not Mossad, or CIA, or SEALs or Craft Employees…just hardworking guys and gals from the Guard doing their job on the orders of the Governor.
As a side not…that “Craft Skull” is the logo for the comic hero the Punisher. And was used as a unit logo for the 1st WMD CST for a long time before Chris Kyle came along. It is a play on the old skull and cross bones used to ID toxic substances. Which is what WMD CSTs specialize in. My unit’s logo was a Spartan…ooohhh..nefarious.

So, who here is informed about the Constitution of the USA?

I've been following a debate on a US forum I frequent about the fourth amendment and how it was followed/not followed during the hunt for the marathon (as this is US based I'm pronouncing that ma-ray-thon in my head) bomber.

There seem to be two camps - one says that hauling people out of their homes at gun-point, in contravention of their fourth amendment rights was a bad thing and has now set a precedent that will allow for whatever bits of the constitution are inconvenient to be ignored by the gub'mint when they can wave the "it's the war against Terror!" flag.

The other camp tends to align behind "STFU faggot, they were hunting a FUCKING TERRORIST, I didn't see you out there with the guns you want to ban".

Which is interesting as the second camp are also the most vociferous about their second amendment rights, and go on loudly and at length about the sanctity of the constitution.

Apart, clearly, from when they don't agree with it.

The whole thing INFURIATES me

Ultimately, it will be down to the individual to claim that their fourth amendment right has been infringed upon. I would imagine, if they want to persue it further, it will be down to who's attourney will be better at semantics. As with most laws.

"guards against unreasonable searches and seizures" - I'm sure the ambiguity in this word has paid for a lot of yachts

What might be interesting here is testing what is "reasonable".

i.e. if we grant that it might be reasonable that the marathon bomber is in a shed within (say) a 4 mile radius of point X then it also seems reasonable to look in these sheds.

Is it reasonable to look in sheds 8 miles away? What about 16 miles away?

He might be in there, having got a lift/been wearing jogging shoes/etc.

That would imply that some pseudo-science has been involved in their assessment of the situation.

Means of travel and the likelihood that the bomber used each one (walking = very likely, air travel = very unlikely and everything in between)

Length of time elapsed and the distances it is possible to travel by the above means.

Stick these into Excel '98 and wait for it to churn out a graph. Take the result and draw a circle on the map centered at the last known location with your "calculated" radius.

I reckon a judge could be convinced that a prostate exam on every man in that circle would be "reasonable" given the public outcry around the situation/

It does seem a bit like the noisy camp would love to come out and say "the constitution of the USA does not apply to foreigners, muslims or terrorists, or those that aide of abet them", but don't yet have the balls.

But is the point not that the people being searched are 'Murican so it is their constitutional right that is being infringed upon?

Everyone will always lambaste or twist any law when it suits them or when they think they don't have to adhere to it.

Everyone is always right, everyone is always the most hard done by.

I think the people who had their house searched were potentially aiding and abetting.

Oh good, a conspiracy theory that actually is pretty intriguing.

Why were a load of "military contractors" with radiation detectors at the finish line. And why was their boss murdered in February?

If this has any truth in it at all I expect the surviving bomber to die from his injuries fairly soon.

I think the people who had their house searched were potentially aiding and abetting.

If they knew about it. Although, they didn't secure their boat knowing it could be a potential hidey hole for a runaway terrorist. That's neglect, they are guilty by default!!!

See how this works?

So, who here is informed about the Constitution of the USA?

I've been following a debate on a US forum I frequent about the fourth amendment and how it was followed/not followed during the hunt for the marathon (as this is US based I'm pronouncing that ma-ray-thon in my head) bomber.

There seem to be two camps - one says that hauling people out of their homes at gun-point, in contravention of their fourth amendment rights was a bad thing and has now set a precedent that will allow for whatever bits of the constitution are inconvenient to be ignored by the gub'mint when they can wave the "it's the war against Terror!" flag.

The other camp tends to align behind "STFU faggot, they were hunting a FUCKING TERRORIST, I didn't see you out there with the guns you want to ban".

Which is interesting as the second camp are also the most vociferous about their second amendment rights, and go on loudly and at length about the sanctity of the constitution.

Apart, clearly, from when they don't agree with it.

Basically the 4th amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure. It guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed.

In relation to what searches? If the cops show up and say "we think the bad guy is hiding in your house/shed/garage/RV/boat and the owner says "sure, go check it out." then there's nothing to worry about.

What specific searches are they thinking about?

I'll have to dig it out of the thread- apparently some home owners refused to allow the coppers in, and were then forced to accept the search.

One second.

Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes - YouTube

It's not easy being pro at the internet.

I bow to your superior Internet Skillz.

I'm more worried about what else snottyotter hasn't been telling us.

Damn kinky sea otters, ruining it for the rest of us missionary only non sea otters.

And only at the weekend.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/boston-bombings-media-mistakes_n_3135105.html?1366674069

Oh good, a conspiracy theory that actually is pretty intriguing.

Why were a load of "military contractors" with radiation detectors at the finish line. And why was their boss murdered in February?

The wonderful thing about conspiracism is that you get to ask questions without ever having to actually make a case for anything, conspiracy theorists are like creationists, they only every question the accepted narrative, they never offer up an alternative view for all the 'anomalies' they feel they've found, they just allude to some nefarious behind the scenes plotting.

I expect if there were military contractors there, they were hired to do some kind of security work.

I expect if they had radiation detectors then they were for detecting radiation.

A lot of these questions from the conspiracy theorists are never followed through by the conspiracy theorists themselves, for example they don't ever go on to explain why they think - for example - after the government/puppet government/Jews/NWO has carried out its 'false flag' attack why it would then need to send people in to monitor radiation levels ?

Can't believe you linked to Infowars, a cesspool of confirmation bias, paranoia, intellectual dishonesty and sheer idiocy.

If this has any truth in it at all I expect the surviving bomber to die from his injuries fairly soon.

Why would that be ?

(as this is US based I'm pronouncing that ma-ray-thon in my head)

ma-ray-thon? Haven't been to that part of the USA.

I'll have to dig it out of the thread- apparently some home owners refused to allow the coppers in, and were then forced to accept the search.

One second.

Authorities looking for a known terrorist, held within a cordoned off area. There's so much probable cause there it's not even funny and that would get tossed out of court so quickly it's not even funny.

Besides, "authorities looking for a known terrorist, held within a cordoned off area" is not the best time to start start arguing probable cause arguments around the 4th amendment with cops. That's just being an uncooperative dick rather than exercising some sensible good citizenship.

So "probable cause" would have in this case been a geographic area within which the police could raid houses at will without contravening the 4th amendment?

Say a circle with a 5 mile diameter based on the bombers last known position?