Secure in Place? Was Boston Under Martial Law?

images-58They are calling it “secure in place.”  The people of Boston and Watertown are being told not to leave their homes.  Businesses have been told not to open.  The manhunt is own and they are going everywhere and anywhere as necessary.  Conspiracy theorists have long waited for this moment.  Is Boston under martial law?

The real question is what would happen if people do leave their homes?  They are stopping short of going totally hardcore with it and saying they will be shot on sight, but isn’t that the basic insinuation?

This is obviously a very dangerous situation unfolding, and hopefully the suspect will be taken care of quickly.  However, in conspiracy circles, there will be plenty of chatter about whether this is the long awaited declaration that will soon become commonplace in America.  What do you think?  Is this the right way to go about it?  Is the situation so dire that this is the only option?  And do you believe this could eventually be a springboard for more intrusions?

2 thoughts on “Secure in Place? Was Boston Under Martial Law?”

  1. After hearing about it happening in Colorado a few months ago, I have wondered about this. If local police can quarter off a building or a city block because a “suspect” is believed the be in the building or block, and they can detain all people within that area and search their persons and vehicles and homes without a warrant, then what is to say they cannot do this within a larger geographic area? The “suspect is obviously within a city, county and state, and within a country. Does this provide justification to quarter off a whole city, county or state, or the whole country? Does it provide justification to order all citizens to remain indoors, prohibit them from traveling freely, and subject every persons, vehicle and residence to unwarranted searches?

    That essentially would be martial law, regardless of what you call it. And, in fact, calling it anything else calls into question the legality of issuing a “secure in place” order. There is a lawful procedure and policy for declaring martial law. But what authority is there of a “secure in place” order? Is it even defined by any statute? How can a Governor, Mayor or anyone else exercise a power that has never been defined or authorized? This sets a very dangerous precedent.

    If this is allowed, then does this mean that one person can set off a bomb or shoot someone, and as a result a million people can then be subjected to orders preventing them from travelling freely and to being detained and searched without warrants? I believe that this is a far greater threat to our lives and liberties than a couple nuts who plant a bomb that kills three people and injures a couple hundred. That is an unpredictable act of murder, assault and terrorism. But when you institutionalize the detention and searches of hundredth of thousands of people without any warrants just because they happen to be within the same city where a crime occurred and where suspects might be, that institutionalizes a policy of powers that is far far more dangerous.

  2. I live in Boston (Allston – less than a mile from Watertown). I have gone out today to walk my dog and get milk. I passed 3 police patrols and not one asked me to go inside. One officer stopped to talk about my dog. This is not martial law, the police are suggesting that we stay in our homes. I think everyone needs to relax.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.