Stopped Today from Photographing by Airport Security

[johann_fuller]

Yes - you should all be thankfull that you are living in a free society where the government does not have to power to tap your phone without the authority of a court, demand on penalty of imprisonment a list of books you take out of a library, put you to death, send you to prison without charge, rig elections, conspire with terrorists, invade other countries without international consensus, bomb civilians, polute the environment etc - that would be one scarry place to live!

[Robin Smith]

"The 60's are over; no more street photography"

 

This might actually be a good thing you know...

[Robin Smith]

"I'm in the voting booth next November."

 

I have to say this is a bit sad. Decide to vote one way because an officer tells you to go away rather abruptly? Talk about small-minded. Sometimes I do think we all need to grow up a little or a lot. My mummy told me off when I was little but I got over it.

[Allen Herbert]

Commen sense should tell that wandering around an airport, with a camra, will invite attention from security personnel...wouldn't it! It's not about civil liberties, it's about commen sense. Unless you would like to be sitting on the next plane with a nice terrorist.

[Allen Herbert]

Maybe they will let you take a photo of their bomb, before they blow your head off!

[james_.1]

Good one Johann fuller, right on. Secret military trials and sentencing if you're "suspected". Wow now that's neat. Take you away never to be heard from again. And yet, a lot here really like the concept.

[joshroot]

Charles Nguyen,

 

At least in my neck of the woods, shopping malls are very much private property. I have been told any number of times to stop shooting photos in malls around here. Either that or they would escort me off the property.

[jay bee]

I agree with Jay.

 

I'll add that its curious to see a small taste (and I stress small) of what goes on in countries that we are warring with generate this kind of loathing of law enforcement. Yet its the US that is opressing these governments/citizens with all manner of conspiracy laden motives rather than fighting in the name of human rights when those can be seen as PART of the equation (yes I know "where are the WMDs/Osama/Sadam?").

 

I've had my share of run-ins with over-zealous law enforcement (mostly over the speed limit ;-))but the bottom line is that we are living in a different world post 9-11 especially in this country.

The government has taken measures to attempt to increase our safety, whether they are the correct ones is certainly debatable but it will be an evolutionary process. Who here wouldn't tolerate more scrutiny to prevent the possibility of sitting on a plane that is used as a bomb? If you aren't you are lost and ignorant to today's realities in the name of defending some sort of civil libertarian ideal.

 

Is it possible that elected officials actually have our best interests in mind when it comes to enacting some of these inconveniences? Its unfortunate that the level of cynisism and political divisiveness (on both sides) prevents some from accepting the possibility.

 

Ray, I think your reaction/actions were spot on - certainly within your bounds to be a bit irritated and inquisitive. To those much more up in arms than Ray - what is the major inconvenience in getting some sort of permit?

[joshroot]

<I>Is it possible that elected officials actually have our best interests in mind when it comes to enacting some of these inconveniences?</I>

<P>

Hahahahaha.....Now you've got me laughing like Peter A.

<P>

Elected officials have only themselves and their major donors in mind 98% of the time. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know politics very well. It's all about re-election baby. This sort of thing won't change until we have serious campaign finance reform.

<P>

<I>Who here wouldn't tolerate more scrutiny to prevent the possibility of sitting on a plane that is used as a bomb? </I><P>

I think we all would. If it were any sort of USEFUL scrutiny. Wasting time with photographers isn't going to catch you a terrorist. Neither is shooing people away from railroad tracks. They are just lame measures so that the govt can stand around and say "look, we're doing something".

[chip l.]

>Too many "X-File" re-runs?

 

Nope, actually never got in to that show.

 

More like history showing that the US looked for an excuse to get in to WWII. And "allowed" the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The same US government that imprisoned Japanese-Americans because of their race.

 

The same US, if history is to believed, that would have gotten out of Vietnam much earlier if Kennedy had not been killed. Keep in mind the US military minds wanted strike Cuba during the missile crisis, not to seek a diplomatic solution.

 

The same US that early in the 60's waged a "war" on organized crime. Yet that "war" ended not long after the assassination.

 

Maybe these were coincidences of history. There is one universal truth, and that is money makes people do strange things. Who profited with the escalation of the Vietnam War? And who is profiting with the "War" on terrorism?

 

The problem is that there are those that are trying to write history as it happens. And woe to anyone that tries to offer an alternative question of that history. Maybe they should just listen to Rush; and hide their heads in the sand.

[Robin Smith]

"And yet, a lot here really like the concept."

 

Yes - and I've passed your name on to the proper authorities for suitable re-education.

[skeeter]

"Check this out, folks. I think it's the Providence, R.I. airport. You can switch from camera to camera, pan and zoom, spot your own terrorists...LOL!"

 

 

 

al, unbelievable site. i have never really understood why taking photographs in an airport is such a security risk, and if it is so, why would the above site be allowed to operate. seems like continuous live video from multiple cameras would pose a much more serious risk (if one exists) than some still photos. i have never seen any information that photographs of logan airport played any role whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks.

[jay bee]

Josh - spoken like a true cynic/conspiracy theorist. When one tries to do anything its all about perceived motives - the drug companies are the only ones benefitting from prescription drug/medicare reform - Haliburton is the only one benefitting from the war in Iraq - etc, etc. If Bush was about getting re-elected he would have done the same thing Bubba did after the bombing of the Cole and the numerous other terrorist attacks that occurred during the Clinton administration - not a whole helluva lot. I'd agree that Clinton was and still is focused squarely on his legacy because it was always about him and his wife not what he could actually DO. Talking a good game is meaningless unless you back it up with action and effort which I'd argue is what is currently being attempted. Right or wrong, work is being done to own up to a responsibility shirked by the previous president.

 

You can contrive any dubious motives you want to undermine those trying to do the right thing. Its also curious that those who complain the loudest about what is done and the uselessness of it are mute when it comes to providing any meaningful alterntives.

 

Please Josh provide us with your pearls of wisdom when it comes to meaningful security measures. Didn't know your expertise extended to this area.

[Robin Smith]

Chip

 

This is a pile of nonsense. It is not a left/right issue is it? Surely it was the Democrats who got seriously embroiled in Vietnam, not the Republicans? Your "startling truths" are so old as to be boring. There are reasonable explanations for all of these things that are not so shocking or beyond understanding that they require astonished pronouncements. The military are paid to come up with military solutions not diplomatic - they give their position on such issues as invading Cuba which is what they do, or perhaps you feel that our politicians should all become generals and vice-versa?

[joshroot]

GO CLINTON! I love Bill Clinton and wish he would date my daughter!<P>

Oh yeah, that is for sure what I said. Mmmmmm-Hmmmmmm, yup. You sure can't get me to shut up about Clinton or his wife. Talk talk talk. stick a quarter in me and I'll go on about Clinton all day long.

Hey......wait a minute. I didn't mention Clinton at all. You tricked me! <br><b>I don't hate democrats or republicans, I just hate politicians.</b><P>

To quote something that I actually WAS talking about, here�s a repeat of what I said in my first post above:<P>

<I>�But I'd rather have spent $87 billion on keeping better track of cargo ships, air-freight flights, "dirty-nuke" material sales, and a national security apparatus that has departments that talk to each other, instead of being tied up in petty "power games"</I><P>

Those are the kind of internal security measures that I think would actually make a difference in the safety of the American people.

[Allen Herbert]

taking photographs in an airport is such a security risk,

 

Taking a few photos of the family etc, well, that's one thing. Wandering around for several days, taking photos of all sort of different things... what would you think if you were security?

 

Terrorists do plan! nice set of photos, very useful. Or, i'm only taking photos, that ticking sound is my motor drive.

[Allen Herbert]

However, i would generally agree that Governments love to restrict individual freedoms. War, and the threat of it, very popular.

[vic_.]

<I>Jay .:"The *real* bottom line is this: if this country was run by a Saddam Hussein or a Bin Laden everyone on this forum would be hunted down and put to death in some torturous manner for their statements."</I><P>Jay, while you are absolutely correct in saying this, here's what I fail to understand:<P>The bulk of Saddam's atrocities against his people occured during the Reagan administration, when the US was busy arming him. Who knows, maybe he learned some techniques from the Special Forces "advisors."<P>Bin Laden was armed by the CIA to get the Russians out of Afghanistan. (A forgotten story is that now Unocal wants a pipeline from the countries to the north of Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.)<P>Somoza, Pinochet, Noriega, Trujillo, Mobuto, and lord knows who else, were dictators propped up by the US, ostensibly to counter the Red menace.<P>The Kingdom of Saud is propped up by the US, just for cheap oil. The New Yorker has written extensive articles about the relationship of the Bush family with the Saudi Royals. The Carlyle Group has offices in Texas, New York, London, and <B>Riyadh</B> (of all places). Why Riyadh? The Carlyle Group is a high finance/venture capital firm stocked with ex-Republicans, including Bush Senior. We don't do anything about Saudi Arabia (or Pakistan), when the overwhelming evidence is that they had a hand in 911.<P>None of the above gentlemen would be considered desirable citizens of the US, and their kind of conduct is abhorred in the US. However, we don't mind if their rape and pillage their own people. We can smugly say that it wasn't us, and that we're Simon pure, that we live up to the highest ideals of human civilization, that we are the most civilized people that ever existed on Earth, that we have a better God/G-d/Yahweh than the Satanic heathens in other stupid savage nations, etc. Then we wonder why they come and bomb us.<P>By the way, the Clinton administration was also part of the buildup in the Middle East, it is not just the Republicans who are to blame. We also don't have a coherent "Exit Strategy" in Iraq. More body bags seem to be the only "Exit" for the soldiers, the unwitting Rachel Corries in a cruel game.<P><I>Disclaimer: I voted for Clinton twice, and would vote for him forever.</I>

[._._z]

<i> I don't know why u guys think that a photo of a total stranger, say at an airport,

is interesting.</i><p>

 

I don't think you understand the full spectrum of street photography: <p>

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1891024477/

[joshroot]

Damn you Frank!

<P>

Now they know!

<P><b><FONT COLOR="red" Size=+3>ABORT! ABORT!</b></font>

<P>All agents report to Cheyenne Mountain base!

[._._z]

<i> Why would a raghead, (who can shut down FAA; NORAD; USAF and National

guard from a cave in Afghanistan), choose a pilot to hit the Pentagon who could not

even solo a Cessna 172, despite 600 hours in his log book..</i><p>

 

"Raghead," huh. Can't wait to hear your enlightened opinions of blacks, poles, jews,

italians, catholics and Hindus.

[jay_.]

Victoria, your understanding is perfect. I am in no way an apologist for any US presidential administration past or present. However when it comes down to basic human rights the US is still one of the better places on earth to live, and despite all the anti-American rhetoric from abroad and all the anti-administration rhetoric from within, the the number of people fleeing the country and renouncing their citizenship is virtually nil while the US continues to be the preferred destination of the bulk of immigrants from around the globe.

[chip l.]

Robin,

 

The point that I was trying to make is that if we try to look at things in current perspective saying that these are the absolute truths, then we are failing to learn from our past. These weren't "startling truths"; just observations from history.

 

No one thought twice at the time about "relocating" Japanese-Americans at the time. It was right for "national security". It was only later that we looked upon this as a mistake, a black mark on democracy. 30 to 40 years from now how will we look upon our actions after 9-11?

 

I was not also trying to tie this to any one political party. Hence the reference to the Vietnam War. Each side of the political coin has their conspiracy theories. Even Rush L. and other conservatives pointed out the Clinton era deaths of some of the key players that were questionable. I could point out Republican issues, but will not since I am not trying to make this a political debate. Just so happens that Bush was in office on 9-11, could have been Gore. And if a Gore White House responded the same way as the Bush White House, I would still be voicing the same concerns.

 

Regardless of the party in control, when questions are being asked - they should be answered. No one - Democrat or Republican - should hide behind what ever excuse they can find.

[john_perkins2]

Last week an IDF soldier called Boris said he'd smash my camera if he saw me taking

any more pictures. I was at Qalqilia checkpoint in the West Bank, which is the only

way 40,000 people can physically contact the outside world - the town is surrounded

by a huge concrete wall and guard towers. "If you approach the wall you may lose

your life", in 3 languages. Now that's security!

[vic_.]

<I>Thomas Turk: "... raghead ... " "... see rense.com ..."</I><P>As a raghead, I welcome your recognition. Let me know your religious affiliation and ethnicity so that I can return the compliment. Here's what's on rense.com, the site that you are touting:<P>http://www.rense.com/

 

<P>http://64.143.9.197/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

 

<P>"Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide-ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich."

 

<P>"The SS was particularly enthusiastic in its support for Zionism. "

 

<P>"In an interview after the war, the former head of the Zionist Federation of Germany, Dr. Hans Friedenthal, summed up the situation: "The Gestapo did everything in those days to promote emigration, particularly to Palestine. We often received their help when we required anything from other authorities regarding preparations for emigration." "

 

<P>"Hitler himself personally reviewed this entire issue in early 1938 and, in spite of his long-standing skepticism of Zionist ambitions and misgivings that his policies might contribute to the formation of a Jewish state, decided to support Jewish migration to Palestine even more vigorously. The prospect of ridding Germany of its Jews, he concluded, outweighed the possible dangers."

 

<P>"Meanwhile, the British government imposed ever more drastic restrictions on Jewish immigration into Palestine in 1937, 1938 and 1939. In response, the SS security service concluded a secret alliance with the clandestine Zionist agency Mossad le-Aliya Bet to smuggle Jews illegally into Palestine."

 

<P>"Conclusion

<P>In spite of the basic hostility between the Hitler regime and international Jewry, for several years Jewish Zionist and German National Socialist interests coincided. In collaborating with the Zionists for a mutually desirable and humane solution to a complex problem, the Third Reich was willing to make foreign exchange sacrifices, impair relations with Britain and anger the Arabs. Indeed, during the 1930s no nation did more to substantively further Jewish-Zionist goals than Hitler's Germany."

 

<P><B>You have got to be kidding, Thomas Turk!!!</B>