Remember that pic of a Muckelshoot net out in front of the locks you posted a few days ago? Watch out someone will take it the wrong way.


story

I'm glad to see the authorities are paying such close attention. To catch those trying to kill us may require some trampling. I think the ACLU and liberal judges among others have tried to hamstring our authorities for so long the criminals have gotten away with murder...literally. Questioning certain behavior that wouldn't get a second look a couple of years ago is a fact of our lives. Molly coddle the criminals and you put them in the driver's seat. Those doing nothing illegal should have nothing to fear.

*a rustling noise is heard *

Sorry, that was just Ben Franklin rolling over. :p

Using that logic we wouldn’t need the bill of rights.

Those word or words very much like them have always been the type of stuff uttered by secret police and dictators all over the world.

We Americas rightly cherish our freedoms, they should never be given up, especially in the name of national security. How many unjust actions have politicians initiated in the name of national security? Iraq come to mind.

9/11 comes to mind as well. So does Ressam trying to move bomb-making supplies through Port Angeles to LAX; then there was Richard Reid with his exploding tennies and the guy who wanted to explode a dirty nuclear bomb in the U.S. and use natural gas to blow up apartment buildings.

Sorry, but I prefer to keep my two sons alive, one of whom lives in NYC. If I have to surrender the right to keep my library checkouts secret, that's fine by me. If I have to take off my shoes at the airport or remove my laptop from its case-- no problem. I thank the TSA agents when I go through security because I do appreciate the job they're doing.

This issue of temporary cessation of freedoms isn't a case of "bill of rights" issues but rather one of "in times of war." It's just too bad that the U.S. and its presidents didn't recognize that war had been declared when the World Trade Center towers were bombed the first time or the Marines were killed in Beirut or the sailors killed on the Cole.

If you don't think that the terrorists who have declared a jihad against the United States aren't interested in bringing the war to our shores, you ought to pull your head out of the sand and take a look at the world. Bin Laden said that only until FOUR MILLION Americans were killed would he be satisfied.

If it wasn't for the security and "Gestapo" doing their job of protecting us, then the Los Angeles airport would be still under repair, and a city somewhere in the U.S. would still be cleaning up the radioactivity, and parents and children and brothers and sisters would still be mourning the loss of family whose apartments were destroyed.

You bet politicians make decisions to abrogate rights in the name of national security. Look at what Hitler did with the Holocaust, Stalin with his purges, the Khmer Rouge with their cleansing, at the Balkans, at Africa. Does anyone honestly believe that this will happen here in the U.S. under our government? If so, I feel very, very sorry for you.

My $.02,

Keith

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the this country (many of whom who frequent this BB) who give meaning to the phrase,"it's possible to be so open-minded that your brains fall out."

They find themselves in complete agreement with open-minded "enlightened" people like Phil Donahue and groups like the A.C.L.U. who are more concerned with the civil liberties of foriegn terrorists and child pornagraghers than the safety of American citizens and their children.

------------------------------------------------------------

I had a Game Warden ask me to show him my fishing license this year at Cottage Lake.

Maybe I should notify the Trib. and the A.C.L.U. because he profiled me as someone who could possibly be fishing illeagally. Even though he did it politely and professionally, and let me go about my business after I showed him my '04 license-- It must be against my civil liberties to be approached with such "Gestapo" tactics.

Maybe I can get John Edwards or another trial lawyer to sue and bankrupt the WDFW with a multi-million dollar settlement for profiling me and taking up some of my time.

It doesn't matter that he was just doing his job--We have to stand up to the WDFW and their "Gestapo" tactics before all of our fishing liberties are gone!

------------------------------------------------------------

"Is the caller there?"

SCOWAK you are a perfect example of the "dumbing down of America"

SCOWAK:

Here are some more thoughts:


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Only our individual faith in freedom can keep us free. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
~Abraham Lincoln

"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."
- Clarence Darrow

You gotta love these debates-- they start off on one thread and sometimes wander aimlessly around-- or apparently so. I'm always inspired by the folks who take a discussion and turn it into a personal attack without adding anything to the discussion but the sound of their teeth rattling.

Since this thread started around the article about a photographer attempting to shoot pix of a federal facility, I wonder which of his rights were violated? What Gestapo tactics were used? I didn't see anything that would cause my Bill of Rights radar to go off, so what is inspiring the tirade?

Could it be partisan bickering inspired by the upcoming election?

I really like Dave's tag line: "When the judgement's weak, the prejudice is strong." It applies in so many ways. I'd only wished I'd seen it first.

Keith

You gotta love these debates-- they start off on one thread and sometimes wander aimlessly around-- or apparently so. I'm always inspired by the folks who take a discussion and turn it into a personal attack without adding anything to the discussion but the sound of their teeth rattling.

Since this thread started around the article about a photographer attempting to shoot pix of a federal facility, I wonder which of his rights were violated? What Gestapo tactics were used? I didn't see anything that would cause my Bill of Rights radar to go off, so what is inspiring the tirade?

Could it be partisan bickering inspired by the upcoming election?

I really like Dave's tag line: "When the judgement's weak, the prejudice is strong." It applies in so many ways. I'd only wished I'd seen it first.

Keith

Come on Dave....I said I was glad the authorities are paying close attention not I was glad that the bill of rights was being tossed out the window....it is not. The gestapo thing is a moveon.org , George Soros talking point bit of trite malarkey. I know that a mantra of the far left is to do whatever you want when and where you want and anything less than that is branded as radical conservative gestapo tactics. That is just not so.

And Stew....All I can say is stupidity should be painful.

Grandpa: The term Gestapo was NOT mine, nor did I claim that the activity trampled our bill of rights. I would make no such claim over the activity mentioned. In fact, I was not even concerned about the incident. I think out security is important and we need to do all we can to stay as safe as possible to try to counteract terrorism. ( Are we safer now than before we attacked Saddam, I don’t think so, but that another discussion.)

I was concerned about your remark that honest people have nothing to fear. That type of thinking always seems to be at the forefront of various efforts to undermine our freedoms. Those who want to register our guns usually say things like that, as do those who want to limit other rights. ( No I am not accusing you of wanting to undermine our freedom.I just didn’t care for that comment.)

We had a discussion at dinner today about the incident at the locks. I was speculating about what would happen if someone was able to bomb the locks and destroy them. Interesting mental picture.

And Dave when I said that innocent people should have nothing to fear I can tell you that I would be the first one to raise hell if I was rousted for something I had nothing to do with. I have done it before and would do it again. Simply being checked out would not rise to the level of my rights being trampled. I would be the last one sitting idle if being checked out turned into being rousted for no reason. Oh and by the way I feel a long way from safe from the terrorists. Unfortunately I think we are only in the first round of a long fight against those who would kill us all if given the chance.

Go to Bangor and try taking pics or Fort Lewis all Pre 9-11. Some common sense rules have just been expanded. Just like when you get pulled over for the New Years eve drunk patrols.

Terror in the Skies, Again? By Annie Jacobsen

A WWS Exclusive Article

Note from the E-ditors: You are about to read an account of what happened during a domestic flight that one of our writers, Annie Jacobsen, took from Detroit to Los Angeles. The WWS Editorial Team debated long and hard about how to handle this information and ultimately we decided it was something that should be shared. What does it have to do with finances? Nothing, and everything. Here is Annie's story.

On June 29, 2004, at 12:28 p.m., I flew on Northwest Airlines flight #327 from Detroit to Los Angeles with my husband and our young son. Also on our flight were 14 Middle Eastern men between the ages of approximately 20 and 50 years old. What I experienced during that flight has caused me to question whether the United States of America can realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, even non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats.

On that Tuesday, our journey began uneventfully. Starting out that morning in Providence, Rhode Island, we went through security screening, flew to Detroit, and passed the time waiting for our connecting flight to Los Angeles by shopping at the airport stores and eating lunch at an airport diner. With no second security check required in Detroit we headed to our gate and waited for the pre-boarding announcement. Standing near us, also waiting to pre-board, was a group of six Middle Eastern men. They were carrying blue passports with Arabic writing. Two men wore tracksuits with Arabic writing across the back. Two carried musical instrument cases - thin, flat, 18 long. One wore a yellow T-shirt and held a McDonald's bag. And the sixth man had a bad leg -- he wore an orthopedic shoe and limped. When the pre-boarding announcement was made, we handed our tickets to the Northwest Airlines agent, and walked down the jetway with the group of men directly behind us.

My four-year-old son was determined to wheel his carry-on bag himself, so I turned to the men behind me and said, You go ahead, this could be awhile. No, you go ahead, one of the men replied. He smiled pleasantly and extended his arm for me to pass. He was young, maybe late 20's and had a goatee. I thanked him and we boarded the plan. Once on the plane, we took our seats in coach (seats 17A, 17B and 17C). The man with the yellow shirt and the McDonald's bag sat across the aisle from us (in seat 17E). The pleasant man with the goatee sat a few rows back and across the aisle from us (in seat 21E). The rest of the men were seated throughout the plane, and several made their way to the back.

As we sat waiting for the plane to finish boarding, we noticed another large group of Middle Eastern men boarding. The first man wore a dark suit and sunglasses. He sat in first class in seat 1A, the seat second-closet to the cockpit door. The other seven men walked into the coach cabin. As aware Americans, my husband and I exchanged glances, and then continued to get comfortable. I noticed some of the other passengers paying attention to the situation as well. As boarding continued, we watched as, one by one, most of the Middle Eastern men made eye contact with each other. They continued to look at each other and nod, as if they were all in agreement about something. I could tell that my husband was beginning to feel anxious.

The take-off was uneventful. But once we were in the air and the seatbelt sign was turned off, the unusual activity began. The man in the yellow T-shirt got out of his seat and went to the lavatory at the front of coach -- taking his full McDonald's bag with him. When he came out of the lavatory he still had the McDonald's bag, but it was now almost empty. He walked down the aisle to the back of the plane, still holding the bag. When he passed two of the men sitting mid-cabin, he gave a thumbs-up sign. When he returned to his seat, he no longer had the McDonald's bag.


Then another man from the group stood up and took something from his carry-on in the overhead bin. It was about a foot long and was rolled in cloth. He headed toward the back of the cabin with the object. Five minutes later, several more of the Middle Eastern men began using the forward lavatory consecutively. In the back, several of the men stood up and used the back lavatory consecutively as well.

For the next hour, the men congregated in groups of two and three at the back of the plane for varying periods of time. Meanwhile, in the first class cabin, just a foot or so from the cockpit door, the man with the dark suit - still wearing sunglasses - was also standing. Not one of the flight crew members suggested that any of these men take their seats.

Watching all of this, my husband was now beyond anxious. I decided to try to reassure my husband (and maybe myself) by walking to the back bathroom. I knew the goateed-man I had exchanged friendly words with as we boarded the plane was seated only a few rows back, so I thought I would say hello to the man to get some reassurance that everything was fine. As I stood up and turned around, I glanced in his direction and we made eye contact. I threw out my friendliest remember-me-we-had-a-nice-exchange-just-a-short-time-ago smile. The man did not smile back. His face did not move. In fact, the cold, defiant look he gave me sent shivers down my spine.

When I returned to my seat I was unable to assure my husband that all was well. My husband immediately walked to the first class section to talk with the flight attendant. I might be overreacting, but I've been watching some really suspicious things... Before he could finish his statement, the flight attendant pulled him into the galley. In a quiet voice she explained that they were all concerned about what was going on. The captain was aware. The flight attendants were passing notes to each other. She said that there were people on board higher up than you and me watching the men. My husband returned to his seat and relayed this information to me. He was feeling slightly better. I was feeling much worse. We were now two hours into a four-in-a-half hour flight.


Approximately 10 minutes later, that same flight attendant came by with the drinks cart. She leaned over and quietly told my husband there were federal air marshals sitting all around us. She asked him not to tell anyone and explained that she could be in trouble for giving out that information. She then continued serving drinks.


About 20 minutes later the same flight attendant returned. Leaning over and whispering, she asked my husband to write a description of the yellow-shirted man sitting across from us. She explained it would look too suspicious if she wrote the information. She asked my husband to slip the note to her when he was done.


After seeing 14 Middle Eastern men board separately (six together, eight individually) and then act as a group, watching their unusual glances, observing their bizarre bathroom activities, watching them congregate in small groups, knowing that the flight attendants and the pilots were seriously concerned, and now knowing that federal air marshals were on board, I was officially terrified.. Before I'm labeled a racial profiler or -- worse yet -- a racist, let me add this. A month ago I traveled to India to research a magazine article I was writing. My husband and I flew on a jumbo jet carrying more than 300 Hindu and Muslim men and women on board. We traveled throughout the country and stayed in a Muslim village 10 miles outside Pakistan. I never once felt fearful. I never once felt unsafe. I never once had the feeling that anyone wanted to hurt me. This time was different.


Finally, the captain announced that the plane was cleared for landing. It had been four hours since we left Detroit. The fasten seat belt light came on and I could see downtown Los Angeles. The flight attendants made one final sweep of the cabin and strapped themselves in for landing. I began to relax. Home was in sight.


Suddenly, seven of the men stood up -- in unison -- and walked to the front and back lavatories. One by one, they went into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside. Right in front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for the lavatory to become available. The men spoke in Arabic among themselves and to the man in the yellow shirt sitting nearby. One of the men took his camera into the lavatory. Another took his cell phone. Again, no one approached the men. Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down. I watched as the man in the yellow shirt, still in his seat, reached inside his shirt and pulled out a small red book. He read a few pages, then put the book back inside his shirt. He pulled the book out again, read a page or two more, and put it back. He continued to do this several more times.


I looked around to see if any other passengers were watching. I immediately spotted a distraught couple seated two rows back. The woman was crying into the man's shoulder. He was holding her hand. I heard him say to her, You've got to calm down. Behind them sat the once pleasant-smiling, goatee-wearing man.

I grabbed my son, I held my husband's hand and, despite the fact that I am not a particularly religious person, I prayed. The last man came out of the bathroom, and as he passed the man in the yellow shirt he ran his forefinger across his neck and mouthed the word No.


The plane landed. My husband and I gathered our bags and quickly, very quickly, walked up the jetway. As we exited the jetway and entered the airport, we saw many, many men in dark suits. A few yards further out into the terminal, LAPD agents ran past us, heading for the gate. I have since learned that the representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Federal Air Marshals (FAM), and the Transportation Security Association (TSA) met our plane as it landed. Several men -- who I presume were the federal air marshals on board -- hurried off the plane and directed the 14 men over to the side.

Knowing what we knew, and seeing what we'd seen, my husband and I decided to talk to the authorities. For several hours my husband and I were interrogated by the FBI. We gave sworn statement after sworn statement. We wrote down every detail of our account. The interrogators seemed especially interested in the McDonald's bag, so we repeated in detail what we knew about the McDonald's bag. A law enforcement official stood near us, holding 14 Syrian passports in his hand. We answered more questions. And finally we went home.


Home Sweet Home

The next day, I began searching online for news about the incident. There was nothing. I asked a friend who is a local news correspondent if there were any arrests at LAX that day. There weren't. I called Northwest Airlines' customer service. They said write a letter. I wrote a letter, then followed up with a call to their public relations department. They said they were aware of the situation (sorry that happened!) but legally they have 30 days to reply.

I shared my story with a few colleagues. One mentioned she'd been on a flight with a group of foreign men who were acting strangely -- they turned out to be diamond traders. Another had heard a story on National Public Radio (NPR) shortly after 9/11 about a group of Arab musicians who were having a hard time traveling on airplanes throughout the U.S. and couldn't get seats together. I took note of these two stories and continued my research. Here are excerpts from an article written by Jason Burke, Chief Reporter, and published in The Observer (a British newspaper based in London) on February 8, 2004:

Terrorist bid to build bombs in mid-flight: Intelligence reveals dry runs of new threat to blow up airliners


Islamic militants have conducted dry runs of a devastating new style of bombing on aircraft flying to Europe, intelligence sources believe.


The tactics, which aim to evade aviation security systems by placing only components of explosive devices on passenger jets, allowing militants to assemble them in the air, have been tried out on planes flying between the Middle East, North Africa and Western Europe, security sources say.

...The... Transportation Security Administration issued an urgent memo detailing new threats to aviation and warning that terrorists in teams of five might be planning suicide missions to hijack commercial airliners, possibly using common items...such as cameras, modified as weapons.

...Components of IEDs [improvised explosive devices]can be smuggled on to an aircraft, concealed in either clothing or personal carry-on items... and assembled on board. In many cases of suspicious passenger activity, incidents have taken place in the aircraft's forward lavatory.

So here's my question: Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of 14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?

Apparently not. Due to our rules against discrimination, it can't be done. During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman stated that ...it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory.

So even if Northwest Airlines searched two of the men on board my Northwest flight, they couldn't search the other 12 because they would have already filled a government-imposed quota.


I continued my research by reading an article entitled Arab Hijackers Now Eligible For Pre-Boarding from Ann Coulter (www.anncoulter.com):

On September 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, [Secretary of Transportation Norman] Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that could have prevented 9/11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin or religion.

Coulter also writes that a few months later, at Mr. Mineta's behest, the Department of Transportation (DOT) filed complaints against United Airlines and American Airlines (who, combined, had lost 8 pilots, 25 flight attendants and 213 passengers on 9/11 - not counting the 19 Arab hijackers). In November 2003, United Airlines settled their case with the DOT for $1.5 million. In March 2004, American Airlines settled their case with the DOT for $1.5 million. The DOT also charged Continental Airlines with discriminating against passengers who appeared to be Arab, Middle Eastern or Muslim. Continental Airlines settled their complaint with the DOT in April of 2004 for $.5 million.


From what I witnessed, Northwest Airlines doesn't have to worry about Norman Mineta filing a complaint against them for discriminatory, secondary screening of Arab men. No one checked the passports of the Syrian men. No one inspected the contents of the two instrument cases or the McDonald's bag. And no one checked the limping man's orthopedic shoe. In fact, according to the TSA regulations, passengers wearing an orthopedic shoe won't be asked to take it off. As their site states, Advise the screener if you're wearing orthopedic shoes...screeners should not be asking you to remove your orthopedic shoes at any time during the screening process. (Click here to read the TSA website policy on orthopedic shoes and other medical devices.)


I placed a call to the TSA and talked to Joe Dove, a Customer Service Supervisor. I told him how we'd eaten with metal utensils moments in an airport diner before boarding the flight and how no one checked our luggage or the instrument cases being carried by the Middle Eastern men. Dove's response was, Restaurants in secured areas -- that's an ongoing problem. We get that complaint often. TSA gets that complaint all the time and they haven't worked that out with the FAA. They're aware of it. You've got a good question. There may not be a reasonable answer at this time, I'm not going to BS you. At the Detroit airport no one checked our IDs. No one checked the folds in my newspaper or the contents of my son's backpack. No one asked us what we'd done during our layover, if we bought anything, or if anyone gave us anything while we were in the airport. We were asked all of these questions (and many others ) three weeks earlier when we'd traveled in Europe -- where passengers with airport layovers are rigorously questioned and screened before boarding any and every flight. In Detroit no one checked who we were or what we carried on board a 757 jet liner bound for American's largest metropolis. Two days after my experience on Northwest Airlines flight #327 came this notice from SBS TV, The World News, July 1, 2004:


The U.S. Transportation and Security Administration has issued a new directive which demands pilots make a pre-flight announcement banning passengers from congregating in aisles and outside the plane's toilets. The directive also orders flight attendants to check the toilets every two hours for suspicious packages.


Through a series of events, The Washington Post heard about my story. I talked briefly about my experience with a representative from the newspaper. Within a few hours I received a call from Dave Adams, the Federal Air Marshal Services (FAM) Head of Public Affairs. Adams told me what he knew:


There were 14 Syrians on NWA flight #327. They were questioned at length by FAM, the FBI and the TSA upon landing in Los Angeles. The 14 Syrians had been hired as musicians to play at a casino in the desert. Adams said they were scrubbed. None had arrest records (in America, I presume), none showed up on the FBI's no fly list or the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists List. The men checked out and they were let go. According to Adams, the 14 men traveled on Northwest Airlines flight #327 using one-way tickets. Two days later they were scheduled to fly back on jetBlue from Long Beach, California to New York -- also using one-way tickets.


I asked Adams why, based on the FBI's credible information that terrorists may try to assemble bombs on planes, the air marshals or the flight attendants didn't do anything about the bizarre behavior and frequent trips to the lavatory. Our FAM agents have to have an event to arrest somebody. Our agents aren't going to deploy until there is an actual event, Adams explained. He said he could not speak for the policies of Northwest Airlines.


So the question is... Do I think these men were musicians? I'll let you decide. But I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?

Geez, Louise. That article really makes me want to jump on my next flight in a couple of weeks. It does bring up a valid point, I think... where do we draw the line between pre-judging people because of their appearance, and perhaps impinging on their rights because of it, and protecting the lives of 250 people?

Aunty-- perhaps YOU should re-read the article. The photographer in question was a student, not a member of the press. And while he was questioned for a "half hour", there is no mention of him being detained, which commonly means being arrested or held in custody.

Not only that, but press photographers have never been able to go anywhere they wanted in a public facility to photograph what they want. However, in something as public as the locks, being told not to shoot is unexpected. During a stated emergency where people are told to watch for strange behavior-- especially folks taking pictures of things like the locks -- you can expect to be called on it, though.

If the person in question wanted to cause a problem, not providing ID is a sure way to do it. It's kind of like going through security at the airport and not taking off your shoes. Don't do that, and you're sure to get the wand and pat-down treatment. He got in-depth questioning.

Post 9/11, we've heard a lot of complaining that the government should have been able to prevent the hijackings, should have known it was going to happen and "should have done something" to keep it from happening. Now that the government is trying to do just that, there is still complaining.

If checking suspicious behavior isn't a way to "do something", then what is?

To paraphrase Dave Vedder's tag line: "If prejudice is strong, judgment is weak."

Now let's see if I can keep from double posting.

My $.02,

Keith

Originally posted by AuntyM:

A Homeland Security agent told him he had broken a law by taking pictures of a federal facility.--Spiers account
------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't the account from the law enforcement officials who approached him or two separate eye wittness' at the Ballard Locks who watched the whole thing unfold.

I heard two separate people call in to two different local talk radio shows say that they wittenesed Spiers being loud and belegerent when he was questioned by law enforcement officials at the locks--So much so that it seamed that he was deliberately trying to make a sceen. They also said that the officials who approached him acted professionally and seamed to just be doing their job to protect and serve the public.
------------------------------------------------------------

There is no such law. Read the article AGAIN. He was detained, photographed and lied to. What purpose does it serve to lie about such a law? It's to instill fear in the populace.--AunytyM

You need to read the article again--Spiers, by his own ommission states that he started the exchange by asking if he was leagally obligated to show his ID. It doesn't sound like he wanted to cooperate from the word go. What proof do you have that he was lied to?

It's funny how you automatically take the side of Ian Spiers who instead of simply complying with a reasonable request and being thankful that law enforcemnt officials were working hard to ensure our safety--Becomes loud and belegerent and demands to know if he is leagally obligated to comply, then calls the Trib. and the A.C.L.U. and trys to discredit the efforts of Homeland Security. I wonder what his motives are?
------------------------------------------------------------

Being detained briefly and having your ID checked is no big deal in my book. However, this article indicates it goes beyond that.--AuntyM

How so?

Because Spiers didn't want to cooperate? Because he notified the Trib. and the A.C.L.U. ? Because the A.C.L.U. had some free time to work on this case in between their efforts to protect the civil liberties of the of the members of National Man Boy Love Assiociation and trying to remove "one Nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegence?
------------------------------------------------------------

The National Press Photographers Association has gotten numerous reports from members who say they've been hassled by police since the Sept. 11, 2001.--AuntyM citing Trib. article


Hassled by who? THE MAN?
------------------------------------------------------------

Gestapo tactics INDEED!

Why would anyone think a press photographer poses a threat to our national security? --AuntyM


Why would've anyone have thought a few middle-eastern men with box cutters posed a threat to our national security prior to 9/11?


The next time a Police Officer or Homeland Security Agent asks to see some ID and lets you go about your business after you show it--you might want to thank them and God that there are people out there trying to make our country safe from terrorists who seek to do us harm -- before you notify the A.C.L.U. and claim your a victim of "Gestapo" tactics.

There is no law preventing him from taking pics but once he does several apply. Notably
SEC. 504. part c of the patriot act.

Originally posted by AuntyM:

I don't care if you're purple with chartruese polka dots. If you fit a profile, then deal with it.--AuntyM


Well said!



But are you referring to potential terrorists or steelhead jigs?

-----------------------------------------

I enter a secure facility all the time. I KNOW how I am supposed to be treated. I also know there are certain areas you don't take pictures in and how NOT to behave.--AuntyM

It sounds like Ian Spiers could learn a thing or two from you.
------------------------------------------------------------

You've mentioned the Caveman's Naval career and his work as a military contractor --I imagine that the background check(s) he's gone through allow him to go places on Naval facilities that the average John Q. Public couldn't go to--much less photograph.

If the M.P's checking identification, clearance and asking vistitors to state their purpose for being at those facilties helps keep the Caveman, you, your family and friends on or around those facilities safe--I think we can all agree that's a GOOD thing.

As important as Naval installations are, why are they any more of a potential target to terrorists than a major water intersection in a large metropalitan area?

"Believe it or not, the military is in the business of defending us from a lot more than domestic terrorism. "

The military has little to nothing to do with domestic terrorism either does the CIA. The FBI deals with domestic terrorism. The military could only be used on US soil in a case of martial law where the constitutional protections have been suspended. We used the NAtioanl guard for a short period ofter 9-11 at airports.

....from all enemies foriegn and domestic.

I was simply trying to point out that for what ever reason there are several things of target value that are worth keeping an eye on--for the safety of everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------


As for your comments about gun control-- do you like to fight or what?

That's OK, I like to fight too.



I'd strap on the old debating gloves and go a few rounds with you on the gun control issue--but I should try and get a little more work done today. You'll have to settle for a rematch on that one.

Have a nice day!

:p

"It's rather amusing though. Approximately 150,000 people are murdered in this country every year by our own citizens. The majority with guns. We've never spent this much time, money or "control" of a persons civil rights trying to prevent it either. "

"My comment was meant to make you all THINK about how many lives we've lost due to terrorism VS how many old fashioned murders we have every year. It's OK for us to kill each other, but we'll be damned if we let an extremist muslim do it. "

Those two statements are about as assinine as they come. 1,.the presumption that it is OK with the American people. 2. that relating the behavior of people to the use of an inanimate object. 3. comparing death statistics that do not list the top 10 reasons for prventable death . 4. When the cost of all related prevention measures are added up it makes the cost of the war on terror look like a blue light special. Again you substitute emotion for facts and logic.

Asinine is going off on a tangent relating the acceptance of gun related murders to fighting terrorists. The complete lack of logic compounded with extreme emotionalism is why the left will lose this election and many more.