Rich, you have yet to cite an example of enabled security measures outside of those involved with railroads and railroad facilities. I take your silence on the matter to mean none exist. So why did you mention it?
Rich,
When I said that, I stipulated that the human behavior I was referring to was the human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism. You left that part out, and so it seems a little too dramatic to you without that part.
Bucyrus richhotrain: This is the problem with a discussion When you make comments like "The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism', it is hard to take the discussion seriously, unless of course someone agrees with that point of view. Rich, Why is it hard to take that seriously? Every word of what I said it true. It is right there in the Illinois video. Any person on public property who is conducting surveillance or monitoring key transportation facilities will be detained and questioned by the police if that activity is brought to their attention. Furthermore, the police and authorities are asking to public to be on the watch for any of the abovementioned activity and to report it if they see it. Why exactly do you feel that I am overstating anything about this?
richhotrain: This is the problem with a discussion When you make comments like "The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism', it is hard to take the discussion seriously, unless of course someone agrees with that point of view.
Why exactly do you feel that I am overstating anything about this?
"the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior"
Isn't that just a little too dramatic?
Alton Junction
richhotrainThis is the problem with a discussion When you make comments like "The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism', it is hard to take the discussion seriously, unless of course someone agrees with that point of view.
Why is it hard to take that seriously?
Every word of what I said it true. It is right there in the Illinois video. Any person on public property who is conducting surveillance or monitoring key transportation facilities will be detained and questioned by the police if that activity is brought to their attention.
Furthermore, the police and authorities are asking to public to be on the watch for any of the abovementioned activity and to report it if they see it.
Paranoia does seem to abound!
On the one hand, those that are fearful of terrorism will give up personal freedom in the name of security...
On the other hand, those that are JUST AS "fearful" of government will give up personal security in the name of freedom.
"Beligerance" seems to be the only defense offered... Defy the terrorist by going overboard with security searchs or go just as overboard defying those charged with providing security.
Either the terrorist is out to get you or the government is out to get you.
I guess I'm right in the middle... EVERYBODY is out to get me! No wonder I'm so paranoid!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
There is one other thing railroads, law enforcement and department of homeland security need to be aware of as well. The public relations nightmare that can be caused for them if they continue down the path of attempting to ban something like photography from a public place of railroad facilities.
I know railroads and local law enforcement departments, city police, county sheriff, etc., have PR officials. I am not sure about DHS. I have seen the name of BNSF's PR person on their web site.
There are some people, I am one of them, who, if told that I cannot photograph a rail yard, a train, etc. from a public place and I know I am not breaking any laws and I am questioned as to why I am doing so, harrassed or accosted in anyway I will post about it on the internet and I will not be nice about it. I have done this before to companies who were in the wrong involving a situation that affected me. I tell the truth and do not use foul language, but get the point across. When I have had to do this in the past it did mpact the company in a bad way.
Then there is the potential involvment with the ACLU. There are those, and again I am one of these people, who, if something happens like mentioned above would not hesitate to file a complaint, report, etc. with the ACLU and ask they investigate the matter. This too can affect a railroads, law enforcement departments reputation, even if nothing else happens with the case beyond investigating the matter.
richhotrain SUX V R40 Rider: Rich, 3 things. 1. How old are you? You don't have to give your actual age but are you under or over the age of 40? I ask because I am wondering where and why you have this line of thinking. Depending on what generation you are part of has a lot to do with it. I just want a better understanding. 2. Please cite examples of enabled measure you mentioned in a previous response. 3. Is your opinions and attitude strictly based on what you see or have seen on the news and what the federal government has "officially" stated as being true? If that is the case have you tried to research the subject further and educate yourself about all sides of the issue before forming your opinion which drives your attitude? Or do you adhere to just one side of the issue, thus forming the conclusions you have? Over 40, but I wondered the same about you. You must be a kid. Otherwise, your views on law enforcement and your suggested demeanor in the presence of law enforcement officers is worrisome. What part of "enable security measures" did you not understand? It was intended as a general comment. Rich
SUX V R40 Rider: Rich, 3 things. 1. How old are you? You don't have to give your actual age but are you under or over the age of 40? I ask because I am wondering where and why you have this line of thinking. Depending on what generation you are part of has a lot to do with it. I just want a better understanding. 2. Please cite examples of enabled measure you mentioned in a previous response. 3. Is your opinions and attitude strictly based on what you see or have seen on the news and what the federal government has "officially" stated as being true? If that is the case have you tried to research the subject further and educate yourself about all sides of the issue before forming your opinion which drives your attitude? Or do you adhere to just one side of the issue, thus forming the conclusions you have?
3 things.
1. How old are you? You don't have to give your actual age but are you under or over the age of 40? I ask because I am wondering where and why you have this line of thinking. Depending on what generation you are part of has a lot to do with it. I just want a better understanding.
2. Please cite examples of enabled measure you mentioned in a previous response.
3. Is your opinions and attitude strictly based on what you see or have seen on the news and what the federal government has "officially" stated as being true? If that is the case have you tried to research the subject further and educate yourself about all sides of the issue before forming your opinion which drives your attitude? Or do you adhere to just one side of the issue, thus forming the conclusions you have?
Over 40, but I wondered the same about you. You must be a kid. Otherwise, your views on law enforcement and your suggested demeanor in the presence of law enforcement officers is worrisome.
What part of "enable security measures" did you not understand? It was intended as a general comment.
Rich
I am 40, I stated that on the MRR forum, so no, I'm not a kid. Unless you're 70, then I can possibly see how you think anyone 20 to 30 years younger than you is a kid, even though they are a legal adult.
How is my demeanor toward law enforcement worrisome? Is it because I have no problem with assertivley standing up for my rights, when I know they are being trampled on by someone who thinks they can get away with it? Would it suprise you to know I am a volunteer with my local police department and county emergency services department?
I understand what enableed security measures means. I asked you to provide an example outside of having anything to do with railroads. If you cannot then do not bring it up or attempt to talk about it.
Why do you seem to be so passive and wanting to let or think it is ok for law enforcment get away with violating people's civil rights? Please do not give the answer that it is for the greater good. I have seen that used way too many times. Come up with something better and more logical. The greater good answer is the default, B.S. cop-out answer.
Bucyrus Rich, When I say you are "doing it again," I am referring to you making up positions that you feel are easily refutable, and then assigning them to those posters you disagree with about this topic. Some people posting here believe that the national mission of investigating suspicious activity is getting out of hand because of the ever-widening definition of what is considered to be suspicious. This may not seem like any big deal yet, but that is only because the mission has not yet caught up with task that has been defined. When some people object to this ramp-up of the list of suspicious behavior, you accuse them of not wanting any security that interferes with railran activity, or even not wanting any security at all. Yet nobody has said that. It is a straw man that you have created to argue against. Another example is your statement above that people here are objecting because they might not be able to take photos of trains anywhere they want. Nobody is objecting to that. Obviously you can’t trespass to take photos. Nobody is complaining about that. Any there is no prohibition against taking photos from public property. The only issue is being confronted and questioned by the police while “monitoring” trains from public property. Some people find that a little unnerving and would prefer it not happen to them.
This is the problem with a discussion like this. There is no room for honest debate. Since the bulk of the comment on this thread has a real issue with security measures imposed as a result of 9/11 and its aftermath, and since I do not have the same level of concern, I am accused of making up positions and creating straw men.
I joined the discussion almost inadvertently since the title of the thread was about an Illinois security video and i live in Illinois so I took a look. Some of the discussion seemed a bit over the top, so I tried to add a little moderation.
When you make comments like "The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism', it is hard to take the discussion seriously, unless of course someone agrees with that point of view.
Like everyone else, I don't like the "loss of liberty" associated with heightened security, but no one has responded to my questions concerning what to do, if anything, about not only the threat of terrorism as it relates to air travel, railroads, and infrastructure. All I hear is moaning about the loss of liberty, the inability to photograph trains, etc.
I am going back to model railroading. It is more interesting than this.
SUX V R40 Rider Rich, 3 things. 1. How old are you? You don't have to give your actual age but are you under or over the age of 40? I ask because I am wondering where and why you have this line of thinking. Depending on what generation you are part of has a lot to do with it. I just want a better understanding. 2. Please cite examples of enabled measure you mentioned in a previous response. 3. Is your opinions and attitude strictly based on what you see or have seen on the news and what the federal government has "officially" stated as being true? If that is the case have you tried to research the subject further and educate yourself about all sides of the issue before forming your opinion which drives your attitude? Or do you adhere to just one side of the issue, thus forming the conclusions you have?
A perhaps not very good example of being controlled by fear was the English pub that had the area around it evacuated because someone left a copy of "The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" in a cloakroom. Don't know if the owner was expecting killer rabbits.... Since there has been a lot of bombings in the UK over the last 4 decades, some caution may have been in order.
Another example of "controlled by fear" (probably more like pandering to fear) was California's legislature passing a law banning private ownership of 50 BMG ammo and rifles capable of firing said ammo. The "fear" was that some "terrorist" could walk into a gunstore in the morning and by the afternoon be plinking at critical infrastructure from a mile or more away. Only problem is that 50 BMG rifles do take a LOT of practice to use effectively, and that practice is very noticeable.
For railroads, there's more of a threat from vandals and copper thieves than terrorists.
- Erik
If you are afraid to get on an airplane until all the passengers have been thoughly searched by government agents, you are not being cautious, you are being controlled by fear.
If you think anyone photographing anything that is in plain sight from a place that they have every right to be, you are not being cautious, you are being controlled by fear.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
richhotrain Phoebe Vet: When our citizens and government are so paralyzed by fear that citizens peacefully conducting themselves in public are considered suspicious, we are in much deeper trouble than any terrorist can cause. "Paralyzed by fear" or exercising caution? I don't think that too many of us live our lives in fear. Your comment seems to be just one more gross overreaction on this thread to security precautions. Rich
Phoebe Vet: When our citizens and government are so paralyzed by fear that citizens peacefully conducting themselves in public are considered suspicious, we are in much deeper trouble than any terrorist can cause.
When our citizens and government are so paralyzed by fear that citizens peacefully conducting themselves in public are considered suspicious, we are in much deeper trouble than any terrorist can cause.
"Paralyzed by fear" or exercising caution?
I don't think that too many of us live our lives in fear.
Your comment seems to be just one more gross overreaction on this thread to security precautions.
richhotrain Bucyrus, the main premise of this thread seems pretty simple and straightforward. Aside from the DHS bashing, you guys seem annoyed because you may not be able to take photos of trains anywhere and whenever you want. I am not sure what I am "doing again". I ask a question and no one answers it.
Bucyrus, the main premise of this thread seems pretty simple and straightforward.
Aside from the DHS bashing, you guys seem annoyed because you may not be able to take photos of trains anywhere and whenever you want.
I am not sure what I am "doing again". I ask a question and no one answers it.
When I say you are "doing it again," I am referring to you making up positions that you feel are easily refutable, and then assigning them to those posters you disagree with about this topic.
Some people posting here believe that the national mission of investigating suspicious activity is getting out of hand because of the ever-widening definition of what is considered to be suspicious. This may not seem like any big deal yet, but that is only because the mission has not yet caught up with task that has been defined.
When some people object to this ramp-up of the list of suspicious behavior, you accuse them of not wanting any security that interferes with railran activity, or even not wanting any security at all.
Yet nobody has said that. It is a straw man that you have created to argue against.
Another example is your statement above that people here are objecting because they might not be able to take photos of trains anywhere they want.
Nobody is objecting to that. Obviously you can’t trespass to take photos. Nobody is complaining about that. Any there is no prohibition against taking photos from public property. The only issue is being confronted and questioned by the police while “monitoring” trains from public property. Some people find that a little unnerving and would prefer it not happen to them.
Phoebe Vet When our citizens and government are so paralyzed by fear that citizens peacefully conducting themselves in public are considered suspicious, we are in much deeper trouble than any terrorist can cause.
It is just a bunch of monologues.
richhotrain Here is my problem with this thread. Some of you guys are upset with the limitations on your ability to photograph trains as a result of the real and demonstrated terrorist threat to railroads. But, at the same time, some of you seem to have little or no problem with other forms of security as a result of 9/11. So, what conclusion should we draw from all of this. It is OK to enable security measures to protect the general population as long as that does not include any restrictions on railfans to photograph trains? Just wondering. Rich
Here is my problem with this thread.
Some of you guys are upset with the limitations on your ability to photograph trains as a result of the real and demonstrated terrorist threat to railroads. But, at the same time, some of you seem to have little or no problem with other forms of security as a result of 9/11.
So, what conclusion should we draw from all of this.
It is OK to enable security measures to protect the general population as long as that does not include any restrictions on railfans to photograph trains?
Just wondering.
You are doing it again. I have not seen anyone take the position you have stated above, and are arguing against.
richhotrain SUX V R40 Rider: It has been argued, convincingly and legitimately in some circles that part of the goal of the 9/11 attacks was to cause our government to change laws to oppress and suppress our some of our rights, in both the spirit and the letter. Another intention was to cause knee jerk reactions, such as railroad security officials trying to tell people what to do on public property. LOL . SUX, think about it for a minute. The intention of the 9/11 terrorists was to get "railroad security officials to tell people what to do on public property" ??? . No, the intention of the terrorists was to disrupt and eventually destroy our economy through a series of ongoing attacks on our infrastructure. So far, they have failed to achieve their objective due to heightened security. . Rich
SUX V R40 Rider: It has been argued, convincingly and legitimately in some circles that part of the goal of the 9/11 attacks was to cause our government to change laws to oppress and suppress our some of our rights, in both the spirit and the letter. Another intention was to cause knee jerk reactions, such as railroad security officials trying to tell people what to do on public property. LOL . SUX, think about it for a minute. The intention of the 9/11 terrorists was to get "railroad security officials to tell people what to do on public property" ??? . No, the intention of the terrorists was to disrupt and eventually destroy our economy through a series of ongoing attacks on our infrastructure. So far, they have failed to achieve their objective due to heightened security. . Rich
It has been argued, convincingly and legitimately in some circles that part of the goal of the 9/11 attacks was to cause our government to change laws to oppress and suppress our some of our rights, in both the spirit and the letter. Another intention was to cause knee jerk reactions, such as railroad security officials trying to tell people what to do on public property.
I said part of the goal. What you state is also true. And guess what? There was/is even more to the intentions of the terrorists who attacked on 9/11.
SUX V R40 Rider It has been argued, convincingly and legitimately in some circles that part of the goal of the 9/11 attacks was to cause our government to change laws to oppress and suppress our some of our rights, in both the spirit and the letter. Another intention was to cause knee jerk reactions, such as railroad security officials trying to tell people what to do on public property.
OK, I finally watched that thing.
I'll make some noise with emails and letters. But, in the end, I'll probably just get put on some watch list.
Illinois is, very unfortunately, rapidly becoming proof that self governance does not work. At least it isn't working very well here.
What other enabled measures do you speak of?
richhotrain Bucyrus: My point is about the profound difference between security today and security prior to these latest developments. The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism. As a result of 9/11 and events that followed, our government could have followed one of two extreme positions. Do nothing, or take national security actions to the degree that you claim that is has done. I believe that it took a more moderate position, and it is still struggling to find the right course of action. I do not believe for a moment that our government is interested in infringing upon personal liberties but that it is sworn to uphold the Constitution to which the preamble reads in part, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". I honestly feel that is precisely what our government is trying to do. Rich
Bucyrus: My point is about the profound difference between security today and security prior to these latest developments. The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism.
The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism.
As a result of 9/11 and events that followed, our government could have followed one of two extreme positions. Do nothing, or take national security actions to the degree that you claim that is has done. I believe that it took a more moderate position, and it is still struggling to find the right course of action.
I do not believe for a moment that our government is interested in infringing upon personal liberties but that it is sworn to uphold the Constitution to which the preamble reads in part, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".
I honestly feel that is precisely what our government is trying to do.
Then you're a bit naive. It has been argued, convincingly and legitimately in some circles that part of the goal of the 9/11 attacks was to cause our government to change laws to oppress and suppress our some of our rights, in both the spirit and the letter. Another intention was to cause knee jerk reactions, such as railroad security officials trying to tell people what to do on public property. Well I have to say, and I quote: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" Because this is exactly what has happened.
Our government had a 3rd option. To keep things as they were as far as our rights and liberty's were concerned and not pass laws that limit, suppress and oppress them.
richhotrain So, you subscribe to the extreme view that our government should do nothing? Rich
So, you subscribe to the extreme view that our government should do nothing?
zardoz richhotrain: I do not believe for a moment that our government is interested in infringing upon personal liberties but that it is sworn to uphold the Constitution to which the preamble reads in part, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". I honestly feel that is precisely what our government is trying to do. Rich I'm glad for you that you feel that way. Unfortunately, too many people feel the same way, and thus the erosion of our liberties continues almost without challenge; indeed, it is considered "unpatriotic" (how ironic) to question all our government does for to us in order to "protect" us. I would say that profiling photographers as terrorists (thereby justifying the questioning thereof) just might be violating the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I would also like to point out the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (highlights mine): We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. If the citizens of the US do not want the government to obey the very laws it was founded on, then perhaps it is time to get rid of the idealistic dreams of our Founding Fathers, rip up the Constitution, and establish whatever form of tyranny would make them feel more secure in their pods.
richhotrain: I do not believe for a moment that our government is interested in infringing upon personal liberties but that it is sworn to uphold the Constitution to which the preamble reads in part, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". I honestly feel that is precisely what our government is trying to do. Rich
I would say that profiling photographers as terrorists (thereby justifying the questioning thereof) just might be violating the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would also like to point out the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (highlights mine): We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If the citizens of the US do not want the government to obey the very laws it was founded on, then perhaps it is time to get rid of the idealistic dreams of our Founding Fathers, rip up the Constitution, and establish whatever form of tyranny would make them feel more secure in their pods.
richhotrain I do not believe for a moment that our government is interested in infringing upon personal liberties but that it is sworn to uphold the Constitution to which the preamble reads in part, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". I honestly feel that is precisely what our government is trying to do. Rich
Bucyrus My point is about the profound difference between security today and security prior to these latest developments. The difference is that we now have a national security apparatus that has taken on the unlimited task of seeing to it that there is no unexplained human behavior that falls under the umbrella of the seven signs of terrorism.
richhotrain Bucyrus: richhotrain: Most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities. Rich, It is very difficult to discuss this with you because you are debating against your idea of what I am saying rather than actually understanding my point. In the first place, I am not objecting to anything the cops will do. I am not saying that they are violating the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. That is what SUX V R40 Rider is saying. I don’t care about security at the Super Bowl. I am not against security. And yes I agree that most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day-to-day activities. All of the above have nothing to do with the point I have made here. OK, you are right in the sense that I am lumping you together with SUX. I will try to undo that. If you will, restate your point. Rich
Bucyrus: richhotrain: Most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities. Rich, It is very difficult to discuss this with you because you are debating against your idea of what I am saying rather than actually understanding my point. In the first place, I am not objecting to anything the cops will do. I am not saying that they are violating the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. That is what SUX V R40 Rider is saying. I don’t care about security at the Super Bowl. I am not against security. And yes I agree that most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day-to-day activities. All of the above have nothing to do with the point I have made here.
richhotrain: Most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities.
All of the above have nothing to do with the point I have made here.
OK, you are right in the sense that I am lumping you together with SUX. I will try to undo that.
If you will, restate your point.
My point is about the profound difference between security today and security prior to these latest developments.
No, I was just wondering if you had. That is what this issue is always brushing up against.
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights... Do you know of any laws that prohibit photographing things on private property from public property?
SUX V R40 Rider: If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights...
If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights...
Do you know of any laws that prohibit photographing things on private property from public property?
I've never heard of any. Have you?
richhotrain Diggwadd: Being young(28) and a railfan has resulted in me being stopped, searched, and questioned. I have been in the back of a cop car and had guns pointed at my head. Special thanks to my parents generation for taking this great nation and turning it into a police state with communists and religious fanatics dueling for power with no regard to how future generations are left to deal with it. Umm, let me break this to you as gently as possible. The 19 morons who hijacked planes on 9/11 were all under 28 years of age. Also, the Israeli Intelligence Agency has completed a study in which it has determined that the average age of an urban terrorist is between the ages of 22 and 25. Rich
Diggwadd: Being young(28) and a railfan has resulted in me being stopped, searched, and questioned. I have been in the back of a cop car and had guns pointed at my head. Special thanks to my parents generation for taking this great nation and turning it into a police state with communists and religious fanatics dueling for power with no regard to how future generations are left to deal with it.
Being young(28) and a railfan has resulted in me being stopped, searched, and questioned. I have been in the back of a cop car and had guns pointed at my head.
Special thanks to my parents generation for taking this great nation and turning it into a police state with communists and religious fanatics dueling for power with no regard to how future generations are left to deal with it.
Umm, let me break this to you as gently as possible. The 19 morons who hijacked planes on 9/11 were all under 28 years of age.
Also, the Israeli Intelligence Agency has completed a study in which it has determined that the average age of an urban terrorist is between the ages of 22 and 25.
And the morons who passed the Patriot act were all at least 30 year old. Don`t worry, I am sure your glorious Social Security and Medicaid entitlement programs will disappear to pay for DHS.
SUX V R40 Rider If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights...
Motley I agree with Rich. There absolutely no way the officers/security guards can know what our intentions are until they approach us and start asking questions, and ask us to leave. Back in July I went to the SunCor Oil Refinery here in Denver. I hopped out of my car and starting taking photos, within maybe 5 minutes a security guard in a vehicle drove up and yelled to me NO. I jumped back in my car, and drove to the other side of the facility. I stayed in my car, but rolled down the window and shot some more photos. Within about 10 minutes they drove by again and saw me. This time they were mad, pulled right next to my car, and told me if I don't leave the facility immediately then they will call the police and I will be arrested. Needless to say I left in a hurry. Before 9-11 no big deal. After 9-11 a very big deal.
I agree with Rich. There absolutely no way the officers/security guards can know what our intentions are until they approach us and start asking questions, and ask us to leave.
Back in July I went to the SunCor Oil Refinery here in Denver. I hopped out of my car and starting taking photos, within maybe 5 minutes a security guard in a vehicle drove up and yelled to me NO. I jumped back in my car, and drove to the other side of the facility. I stayed in my car, but rolled down the window and shot some more photos. Within about 10 minutes they drove by again and saw me. This time they were mad, pulled right next to my car, and told me if I don't leave the facility immediately then they will call the police and I will be arrested. Needless to say I left in a hurry.
Before 9-11 no big deal. After 9-11 a very big deal.
Were you on public property? If you were, is there a law prohibiting you from taking the photos? If not and if you were on public property the security officers had no authority or right to tell you no or threaten you in that manner. They violated your rights and you let them do it. This makes it harder for the rest of us to defend our rights from wanna-b-rent-a-cops who think they can throw their weight around on public property when no law exists prohibiting photography.
People have become way to passive and are way to willing to comply after 9/11 when someone like a security guard tells them no and threatens them. when they are on public property.
Why?
If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights depending on their jurisdictional boundaries and their law enforcement capacity if you are on public property.
SUX V R40 Rider Bucyrus: SUX V R40 Rider: Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room. You can be detained, questioned, and released without any denial of due process because you have not been charged with a crime. If, however, based on their questioning, they believe you have committed a crime, they might arrest you. If they do arrest you, you will receive full due process including a court apperance. That may be, but if I am merely being detained for questioning and have not been arrested I have the right to leave at any time without answering any questions. A right I would certainly exercise with polite assertiveness. If arrested I have the right to an attorney and have the right to not say anything to law enforcement. Again 2 rights I would certainly exercise with absolute assertiveness and it may not be very polite if I know I have done nothing wrong. In fact the only words that would come out of my mouth, in a rude manner, is either attorney or I want my lawyer! I would say nothing more and nothing less. If I am not mistaken once a lawyer is requested law enforcement HAS TO STOP all questioning. And it is not illegal to be rude to law enforcement.
Bucyrus: SUX V R40 Rider: Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room. You can be detained, questioned, and released without any denial of due process because you have not been charged with a crime. If, however, based on their questioning, they believe you have committed a crime, they might arrest you. If they do arrest you, you will receive full due process including a court apperance.
SUX V R40 Rider: Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room.
Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room.
You can be detained, questioned, and released without any denial of due process because you have not been charged with a crime. If, however, based on their questioning, they believe you have committed a crime, they might arrest you. If they do arrest you, you will receive full due process including a court apperance.
That may be, but if I am merely being detained for questioning and have not been arrested I have the right to leave at any time without answering any questions. A right I would certainly exercise with polite assertiveness.
If arrested I have the right to an attorney and have the right to not say anything to law enforcement. Again 2 rights I would certainly exercise with absolute assertiveness and it may not be very polite if I know I have done nothing wrong. In fact the only words that would come out of my mouth, in a rude manner, is either attorney or I want my lawyer! I would say nothing more and nothing less. If I am not mistaken once a lawyer is requested law enforcement HAS TO STOP all questioning. And it is not illegal to be rude to law enforcement.
You have the right to an attorney and the right to not say anything, but you don’t have the right to leave at any time. I believe that some types of behavior during a police-questioning phase can amount to a crime, so they can arrest you just for that. Being rude or impolite might cross over into that area, but I am not sure. I am quite sure that walking away from them, or ignoring them would be a crime.
SUX V R40 RiderAnd it is not illegal to be rude to law enforcement.
True, but the old adage "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar" tends to apply here.
It is possible to be direct, and even assertive, without being rude or disrespectful. Most folks will respond negatively to such an approach - not just the police.
Engaging in pleasant conversation (if possible), displaying fan-type knowledge, and possibly even finding a common interest, will do wonders in defusing a potentially bad outcome.
After all, there are worse outcomes than being asked to move along.
We've discussed such interactions here many times. Invariably the answer ends up being to do as the officer asks and if need be take it up with the appropriate authorities at a less stressful time.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room. You can be detained, questioned, and released without any denial of due process because you have not been charged with a crime. If, however, based on their questioning, they believe you have committed a crime, they might arrest you. If they do arrest you, you will receive full due process including a court apperance.
Bucyrus richhotrain: Most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities. Rich, It is very difficult to discuss this with you because you are debating against your idea of what I am saying rather than actually understanding my point. In the first place, I am not objecting to anything the cops will do. I am not saying that they are violating the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. That is what SUX V R40 Rider is saying. I don’t care about security at the Super Bowl. I am not against security. And yes I agree that most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day-to-day activities. All of the above have nothing to do with the point I have made here.
richhotrainMost of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities.
It is very difficult to discuss this with you because you are debating against your idea of what I am saying rather than actually understanding my point.
In the first place, I am not objecting to anything the cops will do. I am not saying that they are violating the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. That is what SUX V R40 Rider is saying. I don’t care about security at the Super Bowl. I am not against security. And yes I agree that most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day-to-day activities.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Bucyrus You are right that Homeland Security does not say that photography of trains is one of the signs of terrorism. But they do list, “Surveillance and Monitoring” as one of the seven signs of terrorism. Do you think that photography would not be included in surveillance and monitoring?
You are right that Homeland Security does not say that photography of trains is one of the signs of terrorism. But they do list, “Surveillance and Monitoring” as one of the seven signs of terrorism. Do you think that photography would not be included in surveillance and monitoring?
Most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities.
I can ask a uniformed station agent at a downtown passenger station how long it takes to reach my suburban train station. That "inquiry" technically falls under the second sign of terrorism.
I can buy a bag of fertilizer at the local nursery. That, technically, falls under the fourth sign, "acquiring supplies".
When an excursion train pulled by a steam engine runs through the countryside, railfans photographing and videotaping along the way are, arguably, conducting "surveillance" except, of course, they are not.
In the video, the senior citizen is standing on a sidewalk on an overpass with binoculars. From a "profiling" point of view, is a white male senior citizen a potential terrorist? Most reasonable people would agree that he is probably not. But, your objection is to the police officer approaching him to ask his intentions. I see nothing wrong with it. How is this an infringement of our personal liberties or a violation of the 5th, 6th, andor 14th amendments.
Incidentally, what is your view on subjecting to a metal detector search of the fans attending the upcoming Super Bowl?
Diggwadd Being young(28) and a railfan has resulted in me being stopped, searched, and questioned. I have been in the back of a cop car and had guns pointed at my head. Special thanks to my parents generation for taking this great nation and turning it into a police state with communists and religious fanatics dueling for power with no regard to how future generations are left to deal with it.
If a police officer questions you or simply demands you stop photographing trains I think it is best you understand your situation completely. A simple "why" or "am I doing something wrong" can yield important information that can diffuse a situation before it gets out of hand.
A cop may tell you
-You are on private property
-This public area(parking lots, parks, anything that could be owned by the city) is closed after a certain time
-Blocking traffic, sidewalk
Personally I do not care for the direction the country has taken but there is not much I can do about it.
If you become combative in even the slightest way you can be arrested for disturbing the peace. Be courteous and provide ID if demanded. Cops are a lot more likely to leave you alone if you can show that you are not a threat. If they make unreasonable and or illegal demands follow the orders immediately and move to a different location. The next day complain to the PD, write a letter to the editor, tell us all at trains mag forums, and maybe consult a lawyer if you feel it is necessary.
richhotrain Bucyrus: Rich, Well, yes, they have not said that they suspect everyone photographing trains to be a terrorist. In fact, as you point out, they have said they realize that everyone photographing trains is not a terrorist. But we are getting somewhat into semantics. Homeland Security does know that, of all the people photographing trains, not all of them will be terrorists. However, Homeland Security regards each and every individual who is photographing trains to be engaging in a behavior that they say is a sign of that person being a terrorist. And therefore, any incident of this activity that comes to their attention requires them to investigate that person to determine whether he or she is or is not a terrorist. That much is true, right? So if they feel they have to prove that someone is not a terrorist, then it follows that they have to suspect that that person is a terrorist. They don’t know that the person is a terrorist. But they suspect they are. Suspect does not mean that they have reached a conclusion. They know that some of the people they suspect will prove to not be what they suspect them of being. So in the final analysis, Homeland Security knows that not everyone photographing trains is a terrorist. But every one of them must be investigated to find out whether they are or are not a terrorist. And until they determine each one is not a terrorist, they suspect each one of being a terrorist. It boils down to this: Is it possible to check the oil in your car without suspecting it to be low? It's more than a matter of semantics. Some of you guys are simply making unfounded statements. The Department of Homeland Security has not said that photographing trains is a suspected terrorist activity. The video lists seven signs of terrorism: surveillanceinquiriestests of securityacquiring suppliessuspicious or out of place behaviordry runs/trial runsdeploying assets/getting into position Nowhere is photography or photographing trains mentioned in the video.
Bucyrus: Rich, Well, yes, they have not said that they suspect everyone photographing trains to be a terrorist. In fact, as you point out, they have said they realize that everyone photographing trains is not a terrorist. But we are getting somewhat into semantics. Homeland Security does know that, of all the people photographing trains, not all of them will be terrorists. However, Homeland Security regards each and every individual who is photographing trains to be engaging in a behavior that they say is a sign of that person being a terrorist. And therefore, any incident of this activity that comes to their attention requires them to investigate that person to determine whether he or she is or is not a terrorist. That much is true, right? So if they feel they have to prove that someone is not a terrorist, then it follows that they have to suspect that that person is a terrorist. They don’t know that the person is a terrorist. But they suspect they are. Suspect does not mean that they have reached a conclusion. They know that some of the people they suspect will prove to not be what they suspect them of being. So in the final analysis, Homeland Security knows that not everyone photographing trains is a terrorist. But every one of them must be investigated to find out whether they are or are not a terrorist. And until they determine each one is not a terrorist, they suspect each one of being a terrorist. It boils down to this: Is it possible to check the oil in your car without suspecting it to be low?
However, Homeland Security regards each and every individual who is photographing trains to be engaging in a behavior that they say is a sign of that person being a terrorist. And therefore, any incident of this activity that comes to their attention requires them to investigate that person to determine whether he or she is or is not a terrorist. That much is true, right?
It's more than a matter of semantics. Some of you guys are simply making unfounded statements. The Department of Homeland Security has not said that photographing trains is a suspected terrorist activity.
The video lists seven signs of terrorism:
surveillanceinquiriestests of securityacquiring suppliessuspicious or out of place behaviordry runs/trial runsdeploying assets/getting into position
Nowhere is photography or photographing trains mentioned in the video.
But aside from these issues as they stand, I think a next stage is surely coming soon. That will be a law that does forbid photographing key transportation facilities. What could possibly be posed as an argument against it? And you have to assume that Homeland Security wants as little suspicious behavior as possible because they have limited resources.
SUX V R40 Rider Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room.
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: Bucyrus: I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity. While most will not be arrested they should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, (enter your own description), in the to begin with when photographing takes place from a public place. But this is not the case a lot of the time. And this is the problem and this kind of activity from law enforcement should be stopped. If law enforcement and railroad officials want check me out with out my knowledge they are welcome to do so. I won't now about it so therefore do not care until and unless I am arrested if found to be doing something wrong at which point I have the right to face my accuser. Until then do not approach me and question what I am doing, ask for my I.D., etc. You say you should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, etc., but on what basis to you make that claim? They have always had the right to question you if they suspect you, even if you are on public property. You do have certain rights regarding answering their questions, but they have every right to detain you for questioning. What has changed in this whole topic is that train watching behavior has been classified as a sign of terrorism by Homeland Security. If there is any complaint, it ought to be with that. They are the first ones who tell us that they can't profile, but here they are profiling away when it comes to train watchers.
SUX V R40 Rider: Bucyrus: I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity. While most will not be arrested they should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, (enter your own description), in the to begin with when photographing takes place from a public place. But this is not the case a lot of the time. And this is the problem and this kind of activity from law enforcement should be stopped. If law enforcement and railroad officials want check me out with out my knowledge they are welcome to do so. I won't now about it so therefore do not care until and unless I am arrested if found to be doing something wrong at which point I have the right to face my accuser. Until then do not approach me and question what I am doing, ask for my I.D., etc.
Bucyrus: I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity.
I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested.
Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity.
While most will not be arrested they should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, (enter your own description), in the to begin with when photographing takes place from a public place. But this is not the case a lot of the time. And this is the problem and this kind of activity from law enforcement should be stopped.
If law enforcement and railroad officials want check me out with out my knowledge they are welcome to do so. I won't now about it so therefore do not care until and unless I am arrested if found to be doing something wrong at which point I have the right to face my accuser. Until then do not approach me and question what I am doing, ask for my I.D., etc.
You say you should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, etc., but on what basis to you make that claim? They have always had the right to question you if they suspect you, even if you are on public property. You do have certain rights regarding answering their questions, but they have every right to detain you for questioning.
What has changed in this whole topic is that train watching behavior has been classified as a sign of terrorism by Homeland Security. If there is any complaint, it ought to be with that. They are the first ones who tell us that they can't profile, but here they are profiling away when it comes to train watchers.
Exactly correct. It is their act of profiling that is or could be a violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room. At that point I say you're splitting hairs and I'll simply say you can't have it both ways. A person is either completely left alone, until they are seen committing a crime or their civil rights are violated simply by being questioned as to what they are doing because they are photographing trains from a public place. It is all in, or all out, there is no half way here.
SUX V R40 Rider Bucyrus: I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity. While most will not be arrested they should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, (enter your own description), in the to begin with when photographing takes place from a public place. But this is not the case a lot of the time. And this is the problem and this kind of activity from law enforcement should be stopped. If law enforcement and railroad officials want check me out with out my knowledge they are welcome to do so. I won't now about it so therefore do not care until and unless I am arrested if found to be doing something wrong at which point I have the right to face my accuser. Until then do not approach me and question what I am doing, ask for my I.D., etc.
Bucyrus I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity.
Bucyrus Rich, Well, yes, they have not said that they suspect everyone photographing trains to be a terrorist. In fact, as you point out, they have said they realize that everyone photographing trains is not a terrorist. But we are getting somewhat into semantics. Homeland Security does know that, of all the people photographing trains, not all of them will be terrorists. However, Homeland Security regards each and every individual who is photographing trains to be engaging in a behavior that they say is a sign of that person being a terrorist. And therefore, any incident of this activity that comes to their attention requires them to investigate that person to determine whether he or she is or is not a terrorist. That much is true, right? So if they feel they have to prove that someone is not a terrorist, then it follows that they have to suspect that that person is a terrorist. They don’t know that the person is a terrorist. But they suspect they are. Suspect does not mean that they have reached a conclusion. They know that some of the people they suspect will prove to not be what they suspect them of being. So in the final analysis, Homeland Security knows that not everyone photographing trains is a terrorist. But every one of them must be investigated to find out whether they are or are not a terrorist. And until they determine each one is not a terrorist, they suspect each one of being a terrorist. It boils down to this: Is it possible to check the oil in your car without suspecting it to be low?
Is it possible to check the oil in your car without suspecting it to be low?
Nowhere is photography or photographing trains mentioned in the video. These seven signs are detailed in the video because they are typical terrorist activities such as surveillance, tests of security, dry runs, etc.
If an activity by an innocent, well meaning individual draws attention because it seems to be within the realm of these signs of terrorism, that individual may be approached by a law enforcement officer.
I told the story in another thread of my going to the airport to pick up my daughter and grand daughter who were coming in for a visit. I pulled my car up in front of the arrival gates. After some time passed by, I stepped out of the car, with the engine running and emergency flashers on, and went into the airport terminal to check the arrival board for the status of the flight. I was only gone a few seconds, but when I returned to my car, there were two uniformed policemen looking over my car. I was highly embarrassed as i explained what I was doing. That was it. No need to show ID, no frisk, no name on the suspected terrorist list. It was stupid of me as I thought about it, and I certainly understood and appreciated the security concerns.
What some of you seem to want is the absence of any security in the interest of personal liberty.
That is simply naive.
Well, yes, they have not said that they suspect everyone photographing trains to be a terrorist. In fact, as you point out, they have said they realize that everyone photographing trains is not a terrorist. But we are getting somewhat into semantics.
Homeland Security does know that, of all the people photographing trains, not all of them will be terrorists.
So if they feel they have to prove that someone is not a terrorist, then it follows that they have to suspect that that person is a terrorist. They don’t know that the person is a terrorist. But they suspect they are. Suspect does not mean that they have reached a conclusion. They know that some of the people they suspect will prove to not be what they suspect them of being.
So in the final analysis, Homeland Security knows that not everyone photographing trains is a terrorist. But every one of them must be investigated to find out whether they are or are not a terrorist. And until they determine each one is not a terrorist, they suspect each one of being a terrorist.
It boils down to this:
Bucyrus richhotrain: At about the 9:00 mark, the Aurora Police Chief emphatically states that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that not everyone who takes photos is necessarily a terrorist. You have to think about what the words mean. It is perfectly feasible for everybody photographing trains to be suspected of being terrorists without all of those people actually being terrorists.
richhotrain: At about the 9:00 mark, the Aurora Police Chief emphatically states that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that not everyone who takes photos is necessarily a terrorist.
At about the 9:00 mark, the Aurora Police Chief emphatically states that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that not everyone who takes photos is necessarily a terrorist.
You have to think about what the words mean. It is perfectly feasible for everybody photographing trains to be suspected of being terrorists without all of those people actually being terrorists.
Well, "what the words mean" is far different than the statement that the Department of Homeland Security presumes than anyone taking photographs of trains is a suspected terrorist.
Well, there you go. Finally, some sensible statements about the issue at hand.
SUX V R40 Rider While ignorance is not a defense, and if asked for proof law enforcement does not have to provide it on the spot, it does have to be proven later that such a law exists. If a law does not exist and a person is arrested and held without proof of doing anything illegal that person has grounds for a law suit. Law enforcement knows this and usually do a good job at being able to back themselves up on such a situation. You're half wrong about having to provide written proof to make an arrest. Ever hear of an arrest warrant? What do you think that is? It is written documented proof that someone broke a certain law or laws and is subject to being arrested. Ever hear the term "WANTS and WARRANTS"? It is what is searched for when a cop pulls you over based on your plate number and liscense information. Again, written documented proof you did something illegal and a warrant or want is put out for your arest as a result. So try again on that one. A cop cannot just arrest a person for no reason at all.
While ignorance is not a defense, and if asked for proof law enforcement does not have to provide it on the spot, it does have to be proven later that such a law exists. If a law does not exist and a person is arrested and held without proof of doing anything illegal that person has grounds for a law suit. Law enforcement knows this and usually do a good job at being able to back themselves up on such a situation.
You're half wrong about having to provide written proof to make an arrest. Ever hear of an arrest warrant? What do you think that is? It is written documented proof that someone broke a certain law or laws and is subject to being arrested. Ever hear the term "WANTS and WARRANTS"? It is what is searched for when a cop pulls you over based on your plate number and liscense information. Again, written documented proof you did something illegal and a warrant or want is put out for your arest as a result.
So try again on that one. A cop cannot just arrest a person for no reason at all.
SUX, I am going to respond this time and then I am going to stop responding to your posts because they are contradictory and inconsistent.
A law suit filed for false arrest is one thing. But, arrest for probable cause is quite another. If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest someone, that person may or may not be prosecuted, but the person arrested has no grounds to file a legitimate law suit.
An arrest warrant is quite different from what you previously asserted when you claimed you could walk away from an arresting law officer if he is unable to produce in writing the law under which you are being arrested.
richhotrain SUX V R40 Rider: If I am ever stopped by law enforcement and told to stop photographing trains, while doing so from public property, by any type of law enforcement my first question is going to be is there a law on the books prohibiting it. If they say yes, I will then ask for proof. If there is proof then so be it. If they cannot show proof right then and there or say no, they do not have a legal leg to stand on. LOL Did you ever hear the expression, "ignorance of the law is no defense"? A law enforcement officer does not have to present written proof of a law to make an arrest. If fact, if you resist, the officer has the legal right to use force to get you to submit to arrest. Rich
SUX V R40 Rider: If I am ever stopped by law enforcement and told to stop photographing trains, while doing so from public property, by any type of law enforcement my first question is going to be is there a law on the books prohibiting it. If they say yes, I will then ask for proof. If there is proof then so be it. If they cannot show proof right then and there or say no, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.
If I am ever stopped by law enforcement and told to stop photographing trains, while doing so from public property, by any type of law enforcement my first question is going to be is there a law on the books prohibiting it. If they say yes, I will then ask for proof. If there is proof then so be it. If they cannot show proof right then and there or say no, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.
LOL
Did you ever hear the expression, "ignorance of the law is no defense"?
A law enforcement officer does not have to present written proof of a law to make an arrest.
If fact, if you resist, the officer has the legal right to use force to get you to submit to arrest.
richhotrain Bucyrus: richhotrain: First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist. There most certainly is a railroad security presumption that everyone photographing trains is a suspected terrorist. Watch the video linked by the original poster. To be specific, they believe that anyone recording or monitoring activities of a key transportation facility is a sign of terrorism. If it is required that authorities be notified to investigate a person doing something that is a sign of terrorism, then certainly it follows that the authorities would suspect that person of being a terrorist prior to checking him or her out. At about the 9:00 mark, the Aurora Police Chief emphatically states that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that not everyone who takes photos is necessarily a terrorist.
Bucyrus: richhotrain: First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist. There most certainly is a railroad security presumption that everyone photographing trains is a suspected terrorist. Watch the video linked by the original poster. To be specific, they believe that anyone recording or monitoring activities of a key transportation facility is a sign of terrorism. If it is required that authorities be notified to investigate a person doing something that is a sign of terrorism, then certainly it follows that the authorities would suspect that person of being a terrorist prior to checking him or her out.
richhotrain: First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist.
There most certainly is a railroad security presumption that everyone photographing trains is a suspected terrorist. Watch the video linked by the original poster.
To be specific, they believe that anyone recording or monitoring activities of a key transportation facility is a sign of terrorism. If it is required that authorities be notified to investigate a person doing something that is a sign of terrorism, then certainly it follows that the authorities would suspect that person of being a terrorist prior to checking him or her out.
SUX V R40 Rider If I am ever stopped by law enforcement and told to stop photographing trains, while doing so from public property, by any type of law enforcement my first question is going to be is there a law on the books prohibiting it. If they say yes, I will then ask for proof. If there is proof then so be it. If they cannot show proof right then and there or say no, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.
Bucyrus richhotrain: First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist. There most certainly is a railroad security presumption that everyone photographing trains is a suspected terrorist. Watch the video linked by the original poster. To be specific, they believe that anyone recording or monitoring activities of a key transportation facility is a sign of terrorism. If it is required that authorities be notified to investigate a person doing something that is a sign of terrorism, then certainly it follows that the authorities would suspect that person of being a terrorist prior to checking him or her out.
I watched the video when this thread was just posted, and I just watched it again.
In fact, the entire video is about "signs of terrorism".
You guys are way overreacting and making things up in your own minds.
Bucyrus, you should watch the video.
richhotrain SUX V R40 Rider: When you refer to ignoring of notices and warnings and committing acts of civil disobedience are you talking about when someone trespasses onto railroad property or taking photos from a public place, not on railroad property? Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a governmental unit, federal, state or local.
SUX V R40 Rider: When you refer to ignoring of notices and warnings and committing acts of civil disobedience are you talking about when someone trespasses onto railroad property or taking photos from a public place, not on railroad property?
When you refer to ignoring of notices and warnings and committing acts of civil disobedience are you talking about when someone trespasses onto railroad property or taking photos from a public place, not on railroad property?
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a governmental unit, federal, state or local.
Ok, thanks for the official definition.
If law enforcement demands something that is not backed up by a written law on the books and the person does not comply it is not civil disobeience, it is standing up for your rights. Law enforcement takes and oath and swears to uphold the U.S. Constiution, the very thing that guaranteees our civil rights and liberties.
richhotrainFirst of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist.
SUX V R40 Rider When you refer to ignoring of notices and warnings and committing acts of civil disobedience are you talking about when someone trespasses onto railroad property or taking photos from a public place, not on railroad property?
richhotrain This thread turned silly about three pages ago. First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist. Second of all, many of the arguments made in this thread about ignoring security notices and warnings are at least acts of civil disobedience, and they carry legal consequences including arrest and prosecution. I guess that you could resist arrest, but lots of luck. The actions of railroad security officers cited in this thread are, in no way, violations of the U.S. Constitution and certainly not the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. While this argument wouldn't hold water either, one would make a better argument by arguing violation of the 1st Amendment. Rich
This thread turned silly about three pages ago.
First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist.
Second of all, many of the arguments made in this thread about ignoring security notices and warnings are at least acts of civil disobedience, and they carry legal consequences including arrest and prosecution. I guess that you could resist arrest, but lots of luck.
The actions of railroad security officers cited in this thread are, in no way, violations of the U.S. Constitution and certainly not the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. While this argument wouldn't hold water either, one would make a better argument by arguing violation of the 1st Amendment.
While railroad security officials do not o may not have this presumption, and i call that into question, it has been established that the Department of Homeland security does have that presumption.
Of course we have to keep in mind that the Committee for State Security views photography of any kind of facility from anywhere to be a terrorist threat.
I don’t know if railroad cops take such an oath. But cops are free to assume you are guilty. It is just that their assumption is not the final word in the matter. You still get due process. But cops can stop you and question you any time without it being a violation of the constitution. I am not sure what limits may or may not be placed on the reason they can question you.
The big issue I see is that Homeland Security has proclaimed that photographing trains is automatic evidence that the photographer is doing so in order to plan for unlawful activity. I think it is fair to say that they do not conclude that there can be no other explanation for railroad photography. But because the possibility of the photographer having terrorist intentions always exists, then it is incumbent on the authorities to prove otherwise in every case of such behavior if it is detected.
But this is indeed a bureaucratic absurdity. Where do you draw the line? What is suspicious behavior and what isn’t? If photographing trains is suspicious, then surely just paying attention to them is equally suspicious. Homeland Security illustrates the absurdity of this when they tell the public that anything you don’t understand qualifies as suspicious, and therefore requires an official checkout by the authorities. I would have to call the police to check out people in grocery stores talking on cell phones.
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: Again by assuming all rail fans are terrorists homeland security is in stark violation of at the very least the spirit of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement? I don’t see how the authorities suspecting railroad photographers of being terrorists is a violation of the 5th, 6th, or 14th Amendments. Due process is not being denied by suspecting one is a terrorist. As far as refusing to answer questions, that is up to each individual. It is a tradeoff as to whether you want to end the hassle expeditiously, or stand on the principle that the hassle should not have occurred in the first place.
SUX V R40 Rider: Again by assuming all rail fans are terrorists homeland security is in stark violation of at the very least the spirit of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement?
BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement?
I don’t see how the authorities suspecting railroad photographers of being terrorists is a violation of the 5th, 6th, or 14th Amendments. Due process is not being denied by suspecting one is a terrorist. As far as refusing to answer questions, that is up to each individual. It is a tradeoff as to whether you want to end the hassle expeditiously, or stand on the principle that the hassle should not have occurred in the first place.
Because the presumption is already there that anyone photographing railroads are terrorists. That is how the 3 amendments are being violated, at least in the spirit. When law enforcement of any type approaches you because you are photographing anything from a public place they already have the mind set you must be doing so to commit illegal acts later. As such they consider you guilty before you even have a chance to prove your innocence.
I tend to stand on the principle that the hassle should never occur in the first place.
Answer me this if anyone can. Do railroad law enforcement personal take an oath and swear to uphold and abide by the U.S. Constitution as all other law enforcement officials in this country do?
SUX V R40 RiderAgain by assuming all rail fans are terrorists homeland security is in stark violation of at the very least the spirit of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement?
Bucyrus Regarding the use of a face recognition camera to confirm whether or not a person is on the list of terrorists, there is a high probability that an actual terrorist would not be on any list. If they would be satisfied that a person was not a threat just because they are not on the list, they would not need airport security. They could just check your identity against the terrorist list when you buy your ticket. They check people at the airports even though there is no reason to suspect them. With train photographers, the starting assumption is that they are all terrorists. This is because being a terrorist is the only explanation they can understand for why a person would take pictures of trains. Any real terrorist with half a brain that wants to photograph trains for tactical information is going to disguise himself as a railfan photographer.
Any real terrorist with half a brain that wants to photograph trains for tactical information is going to disguise himself as a railfan photographer.
Again by assuming all rail fans are terrorists homeland security is in stark violation of at the very least the spirit of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement? Did you also know you have the right to refuse to show your I.D. to such a person? You do. The problem is most people either don't know it, or comply anyway which puts their name on a list which can have a harmful affect on you later on.
Regarding the use of a face recognition camera to confirm whether or not a person is on the list of terrorists, there is a high probability that an actual terrorist would not be on any list. If they would be satisfied that a person was not a threat just because they are not on the list, they would not need airport security.
They could just check your identity against the terrorist list when you buy your ticket. They check people at the airports even though there is no reason to suspect them. With train photographers, the starting assumption is that they are all terrorists. This is because being a terrorist is the only explanation they can understand for why a person would take pictures of trains.
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: Let's talk about public train facilities. Isn't Grand Central Terminal a public building? If it is is there a law, ordinance or signs posted prohibting photography in any of the public places of the building? If there are signs posted, is there actually a law or ordinance in place to back it up? If not why the rule against photography in the building? I don't understand your analogy. Is there a prohibition against taking photographs in GCT? There two distinct issues about railroad phtotography. One is that you can't trespass in order to take pictures. That has always been the case and the reasoning is understandable. The other issue is that a photographer might be a terrorist collecting visual information to plan a terrorist attack. That issue is much harder to pin down. Nobody has yet banned railroad photography because of that issue. It is just that Homeland Security believes that anyone photographing railroad facilities is a suspected terrorist and must be checked out to prove otherwise. What they have not figured out, however, is how to check out someone photographing trains and prove that he or she is not a terrorist. How would you accomplish that objective if you ran Homeland Security?
SUX V R40 Rider: Let's talk about public train facilities. Isn't Grand Central Terminal a public building? If it is is there a law, ordinance or signs posted prohibting photography in any of the public places of the building? If there are signs posted, is there actually a law or ordinance in place to back it up? If not why the rule against photography in the building?
Let's talk about public train facilities. Isn't Grand Central Terminal a public building? If it is is there a law, ordinance or signs posted prohibting photography in any of the public places of the building? If there are signs posted, is there actually a law or ordinance in place to back it up? If not why the rule against photography in the building?
I don't understand your analogy. Is there a prohibition against taking photographs in GCT?
There two distinct issues about railroad phtotography. One is that you can't trespass in order to take pictures. That has always been the case and the reasoning is understandable.
The other issue is that a photographer might be a terrorist collecting visual information to plan a terrorist attack. That issue is much harder to pin down. Nobody has yet banned railroad photography because of that issue. It is just that Homeland Security believes that anyone photographing railroad facilities is a suspected terrorist and must be checked out to prove otherwise.
What they have not figured out, however, is how to check out someone photographing trains and prove that he or she is not a terrorist.
How would you accomplish that objective if you ran Homeland Security?
Could the department of Homeland Security be guilty of violating the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, not in the letter of the law but at least in some ways be doing so in the spirit of these 3 amendments, because they believe anyone photographing railroad facilities is a terrorist? I grew up learning and learned even more so in school that ALL Americans are protected by these 3 amendments, among the others. As such I have always had a healthy respect for the law and the U.S. Constitution. Was I taught wrong? Was I foolish to believe what I was taught? I am pretty sure the basis of these 3 amendments is still being taught in schools, even today. Does this mean, because of homeland security is doing there is yet another generation of suckers being taught something that will not be true and apply to them when they finish school?
I have a solution on how to check someone out. Install cameras connected to the face recognition software on the private railroad property where anyone who is likely to stop, on public property to take photos. Face them toward the people who stop to take photos and when someone stops have the camera zoom in on them and if possible their vehicle to identify who they are. If they are indeed someone who is on the so called watch list then have the authorities alerted. As far as I know there is nothing illegal about installing cameras on private property and facing them toward the adjacent public area. The ACLU, who strongly opposes any type of camera on or in a public place, like red light and speed enforcement cameras, would not have any say the matter because they would be paid for, installed, operated by the railroad, a private entity. The person operating the cameras would simply be the one who monitors them, and if something comes up he or she makes a phone call to alert the authorities. The footage captured on video could be used as evidence in a court of law, thus preserving the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.
SUX V R40 Rider Let's talk about public train facilities. Isn't Grand Central Terminal a public building? If it is is there a law, ordinance or signs posted prohibting photography in any of the public places of the building? If there are signs posted, is there actually a law or ordinance in place to back it up? If not why the rule against photography in the building?
There has been mention, more than once, about taking photos from a public place. But what about taking photos FROM a public place, OF a public place? Indulge me a little and try to follow if you would.
Would it surprise you to know I have, without permission, and after 9/11, that I walked into a public building with tripod and camera and started taking photos? I did this in not one but 2 buildings in downtown Sioux City, Iowa. One was City Hall and the other the Woodbury County Courthouse. Both are historic buildings, the courthouse was designed by famous architect, William L. Steele. In the courthouse someone walked up and asked if I was with the local media and what the story was going to be about. I advised that person I am not, but they never asked why I was taking photos. And while I was doing this there were police officers and sheriff's deputies in and out of the buildings on city or county business and not a one of them gave me a second glance or approached me about what I was doing.
You may wonder why nad how could this be, after 9/11. Simple, it is a public place, paid for by public tax dollars and both buildings belong to the people of Sioux City and Woodbury County, Iowa. and the law enforcement in my area knows this.
Next summer I am hoping to visit the Iowa State Capitol Building and photorgraph it from the inside.
edblysard http://news.yahoo.com/mass-woman-says-tsa-confiscated-frosted-cupcake-002833828.html Sometimes ya just can't invent anything more stupid than the truth. Thank god she didn't have a birthday cake on her, they may have shot her on the spot.....
http://news.yahoo.com/mass-woman-says-tsa-confiscated-frosted-cupcake-002833828.html
Sometimes ya just can't invent anything more stupid than the truth.
Thank god she didn't have a birthday cake on her, they may have shot her on the spot.....
I thought the last few sentences really summed it up well: "It's about an encroachment on civil liberties. We're just building up a resistance and tolerance to all these things they're doing in the name of security, when it's really theater. It is not keeping us safe."
vsmith Interesting, but if a I wanted to play Boris Badenoff for a day why wouldn't I just choose from the huge array of legal spying technics like pinhole cameras that can have the lenses fitted onto a tie clip or any of the other dozen methods of information gathering? Dont any of these "experts" watch any of those hidden camera exposes?
Interesting, but if a I wanted to play Boris Badenoff for a day why wouldn't I just choose from the huge array of legal spying technics like pinhole cameras that can have the lenses fitted onto a tie clip or any of the other dozen methods of information gathering? Dont any of these "experts" watch any of those hidden camera exposes?
TSA visited Utica Union Station last week. At 3 PM they picked up and left...
23 17 46 11
My worth.
Isn't amazing what 19 idiots with box cutters can do for the national security of this country?
To paraphrase George Patton The idea of war is not to die for your cause but to make the other poor SOB die for his.
Rgds IGN
PS To VS nice picture of the Gomez Adams and his trains. And how appropriate to the subject! LOL
Bucyrus Zardoz, What I was getting at above is that any real terrorist worth his salt is going to figure out that the best method for railroad reconnaissance is to pose as a railfan. So when the authorities figure out the ruse, it will do no good to check out railfans to make sure they are not terrorists. After all, Homeland Security makes a big point of not profiling people on their appearance because they say terrorists can look like anybody.
After all, Homeland Security makes a big point of not profiling people on their appearance because they say terrorists can look like anybody.
FWIW, I agree with you.
Zardoz,
What I was getting at above is that any real terrorist worth his salt is going to figure out that the best method for railroad reconnaissance is to pose as a railfan. So when the authorities figure out the ruse, it will do no good to check out railfans to make sure they are not terrorists.
eolafan The next thing you know we'll be seeing "Kim Jong Un for President...like it or not" placards on telephone poles all over the place!
The next thing you know we'll be seeing "Kim Jong Un for President...like it or not" placards on telephone poles all over the place!
I've already heard people referring to the heir apparent of North Krazyland as Kim Jong Who? or Kim Jong Huh?
Have fun with your trains
vsmith ...."I could slip onto the tracks and back off again and never be seen because the security guys are too busy aiming their cameras on John Q Foamer standing on a bridge taking pictures of the 2:15 local. So you get my point, and by the way, I'm not saying anything that isnt already well understood by anyone who really knows how to assess where the threats are. This is the simplistic thinking I'm using, nothing sophisticated. The notion of someone standing in full plain view with a tripod and camera and a hat covered in railroad pins is the threat is idiotic.
...."I could slip onto the tracks and back off again and never be seen because the security guys are too busy aiming their cameras on John Q Foamer standing on a bridge taking pictures of the 2:15 local.
So you get my point, and by the way, I'm not saying anything that isnt already well understood by anyone who really knows how to assess where the threats are. This is the simplistic thinking I'm using, nothing sophisticated. The notion of someone standing in full plain view with a tripod and camera and a hat covered in railroad pins is the threat is idiotic.
Thanks, Vsmith. Lost in this discussion is one of the major points I was making about the video. Down on the tracks we get a momentary glimpse of three people who may be trespassers heading along the right of way. Likely they are simply taking a convenient shortcut, not preparing to plant a time bomb in the nearby staged commuter cars or some such terrorist act. The fact remains that they are completely ignored in this video. That sort of selective blindness is why the moniker "security theatre" is so often deserved.
John
zardoz Bucyrus: 3) There is no way that Homeland Security or authorities can conclude that a person taking pictures of railroad operations from public property is not part of a terrorist operation, even after checking them out. Good luck explaining that to Sheriff Buford T. Justice when he rolls up and drawls, "Whatcha doin' there boy?"
Bucyrus: 3) There is no way that Homeland Security or authorities can conclude that a person taking pictures of railroad operations from public property is not part of a terrorist operation, even after checking them out. Good luck explaining that to Sheriff Buford T. Justice when he rolls up and drawls, "Whatcha doin' there boy?"
I said no way to conclude person is not a terrorist.
Its not a far reach to go from prohibiting taking pictures of trains from public spaces to prohibiting taking pictures of plazas, buildings and landmarks from public spaces, its the same logic, and flawed logic at that. Sorry your vacation ended in jail, but you shouldnt have taken those pictures of your children in front of the Lincoln Memorial, its National Security dontch know!
richhotrain Phoebe Vet: The country continues to sink into the swamp of paranoia. We live in a country where we suspect people of being criminals if they take pictures of things that you can see from a public street. Our national obsession with "security" is becoming a mental illness. C'mon, Dave, isn't there some trade off between personal liberty and group security? Is it really such an imposition to accept some limits on one's ability to photograph or film trains due to the demonstrated security risks which we are all exposed to? Rich
Phoebe Vet: The country continues to sink into the swamp of paranoia. We live in a country where we suspect people of being criminals if they take pictures of things that you can see from a public street. Our national obsession with "security" is becoming a mental illness.
The country continues to sink into the swamp of paranoia. We live in a country where we suspect people of being criminals if they take pictures of things that you can see from a public street. Our national obsession with "security" is becoming a mental illness.
C'mon, Dave, isn't there some trade off between personal liberty and group security?
Is it really such an imposition to accept some limits on one's ability to photograph or film trains due to the demonstrated security risks which we are all exposed to?
I don't know if this is meant to be satirical and you were being sarcastic, but in case it isn't and you were not:
No, there is no trade off and there never should be, even after 09/11.
Yes, it is an imposition to accept limits on such things when done from a PUBLIC place.
Bucyrus Here is where we are: 1) It is not illegal to take pictures of railroad operations from public property. 2) Homeland Security regards taking pictures of railroad operations from public property to be suspicious enough to require a checkout by authorities. 3) There is no way that Homeland Security or authorities can conclude that a person taking pictures of railroad operations from public property is not part of a terrorist operation, even after checking them out.
Bucyrus Considering this irresolvable dilemma, the only remedy can be to make it illegal to take pictures of railroad operations from public property.
Here is where we are:
1) It is not illegal to take pictures of railroad operations from public property.
2) Homeland Security regards taking pictures of railroad operations from public property to be suspicious enough to require a checkout by authorities.
3) There is no way that Homeland Security or authorities can conclude that a person taking pictures of railroad operations from public property is not part of a terrorist operation, even after checking them out.
Considering this irresolvable dilemma, the only remedy can be to make it illegal to take pictures of railroad operations from public property.
Interesting, but if a I wanted to play Boris Badenoff for a day why wouldn't I just choose from the huge array of legal spying technics like pinhole cameras that can have the lenses fitted onto a tie clip or any of the other dozen methods of information gathering? Dont any of these "experts" watch any of those hidden camera exposes? Properly equiped with spyware hidden in my clothing and dressed as a commueter I could easily A: case every station, and the interior of every train for that matter, schedules are published on line so no need to time trains,and if I wanted to I could easily track movements as long as I was in eyesight of the line, like in a parked car at a nearly trackside park or store, and most of the lines are readily accessable by nearby roadways, I could slip onto the tracks and back off again and never be seen because the security guys are too busy aiming their cameras on John Q Foamer standing on a bridge taking pictures of the 2:15 local.
First, a wee story and then some oddball devil's advocate conclusions:
Many years ago, prior to the fall of the many Communist states, as a seasoned foreign traveler, my brother was assigned by his company to go to one of them to study how well a large cadre of rank and file employees of his company might fare if they were sent there en masse on company business. He said he dressed as a "tourist" (loud Hawaiian shirt and ragged cut-off shorts, a broad brimmed hat and sunglasses) with a couple of cameras around his neck and went "sight-seeing" to see what would happen in different circumstances (brave soul he was!).
He said there was a large building in the center of the city he was in that was very old and quite ornate (we in the U.S. think a building is old when it is older than our country, but 200 years is nothing compared to the age of some of the buildings in eastern (and all over) Europe!). So he stood across the plaza from it and took a photo of it.
Immediately, a guard ran toward him, waiving his arms and yelling. My brother smiled and waived back and then aimed the camera at the guard to take his picture. The guard stopped running, straightened his uniform jacket and actually posed for the photo... Then approached my brother and took the camera away from him, opened it, removed the film and pulled it from the canister to totally expose the whole roll, ruining the film (including the image he had just posed for!)!
He then gave the camera back to my brother and explained in a combination of broken English and his native tongue that the building is a Government building and it is forbidden to take photos of it. My brother acknowledged the admonition, apologized and was allowed to go his way.
When my brother came back to the States, I asked him why they would not allow someone to photograph a building from the outside. The answer that he got from the U.S. State Department when he asked them the same thing, is that with a photograph "one might be able to count the windows and determine how many rooms there were and then guess at the number of people that work in it."
I said, "Couldn't you just stand in front of the building and go, like, '1', '2', '3 ... and count the windows?"
He said the State Department kind of dismissed that comment when he asked them the same thing.
I have since given this event considerable thought, (but not much investigation!) and have some conclusions... It is possible that with a photograph, it could be enlarged such as to reveal details that the eye might not take into account in direct viewing or actually be unable to see at all, depending on the film used and the type of lens. The 'eye' might not be able to see INTO a window, but an infrared or highly sensitive film might be able to produce an image of what is beyond the darkened window. And a telephoto might show detail of construction or fortification that the eye cannot discern.
To tie this to the present "terrorist" scenareo, it is possible that the person taking the photo is not the one that will be committing suicide, but is supplying imagery so the poor sap, who is convinced that their own death is unimportant, can have a good idea of what the intended target actually looks like.
Granted, Google Earth imagery is quite good at showing the outside of buildings but the interior of most buidings (train station boarding areas?) are not so easily found on-line in the detail the terrorist might want (sure, there are plenty of tourist photos and official images posted all over, but they MAY now show what is desired, nor be 'recent').
Additionally, if you were a terrorist group, and decided on a suidical attack on some location, you would probably not want to chance sending the poor sap himself to do the investigation, but send someone else to take photos so the idiot will be able to recognize the target. If you turn the poor sap loose in American society to do his own investigation, he MIGHT decide he is enjoying himself too much to want to terminate his life in such a way and the whole plan goes down the tubes! You would want to keep the idiot unaware of the joy of freedom in American society!
By the way... just to put a cap on the wee story... my brother waited until 5:00 PM that day for the guards to all go home and he took a photo of the building anyway. I have seen it and it was a beautiful old building... And, no, I didn't waste my time counting the windows so I cannot guess how many rooms there are or how many people work there, but I do remember that it was 3 stories tall, if that is any help.
richhotrain Mac, I appreciate your comments, and we can't let this discussion digress too much without getting the thread locked. I do agree with you that strip searching grandmothers in wheel chairs is quite ridiculous. On the other hand, if we did nothing after 9/11, who knows how much more dangerous air travel would be and how many more terrorist incidents would have occurred. The terrorist threat to railroads is real and demonstrated to date. None of us like restrictions or infringements on our personal liberties, but terrorism is real. I, for one, have no objection to limits such as our right to photograph trains. I do not, for one second, believe that this is a step toward descent into totalitarianism. Rich
Mac,
I appreciate your comments, and we can't let this discussion digress too much without getting the thread locked.
I do agree with you that strip searching grandmothers in wheel chairs is quite ridiculous.
On the other hand, if we did nothing after 9/11, who knows how much more dangerous air travel would be and how many more terrorist incidents would have occurred.
The terrorist threat to railroads is real and demonstrated to date. None of us like restrictions or infringements on our personal liberties, but terrorism is real. I, for one, have no objection to limits such as our right to photograph trains. I do not, for one second, believe that this is a step toward descent into totalitarianism.
Goggle maps is now offering aerial views of many American cities as part of the Satellite view function. When you zoom in to maximum the picture automatically switches to an extremely high resolution aerial view where objects only a few inches in size can be clearly seen:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
If you go to the above link and zoom in you will see CSX's main Boston,Ma. area engine facility in great detail.
If somebody wants to, say, destroy a railroad bridge with explosives it seems to me that most of the recon can be done online....
The real terrorist threats to railroads you mentioned have mostly been attempts to launch suicide bomb attacks on transit trains. To plan this one only needs to go to the transit lines website and maybe ride a few trains, but I don't see why photographs would be required.
So what is banning railfan photography from public property going to accomplish other than letting politicians and bureaucrats pose as being "tough on terrorism"?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
If the Feds were Serious about Saftey and Secruity for the Nation instead of going after the little old lady at the Airports like they love to do or the man that had to remove a Depends so he could clear Secruity at the Airport what they would do instead would be working to Secure the Nations Borders. I am sorry but when people that live along the I-8 corridor will not leave their houses at night since they GET SHOT AT by all the illegals that are running drugs into the USA and the Border Patrol does NOTHING. Then we have on the OTR side all the Chemical trucks that are shipped there people you are aware that most TIH does not go by RAIL it moves by truck. If a terrorist wanted to take out the driver disabled the tracking system and hat is easy to do Cut the wires to it. Bang you have one hell of a WMD IED right there. Strap enough C4 on it to blow the tank and if placed right you could take out a major City. Just a hypothetical problem and yet the TSA and Dept of Homeland Security think a TWIC card will stop it from Happening BS it will.
Phoebe Vet By what possible line of logic do you assign the time in line to get into the quiet car to security? If you want to count the time in line at the door to the platform then you must also count the time waiting your turn at the airport gate. I do not have a disdain for flying. I have a disdain for being treated like a criminal.
By what possible line of logic do you assign the time in line to get into the quiet car to security?
If you want to count the time in line at the door to the platform then you must also count the time waiting your turn at the airport gate.
I do not have a disdain for flying. I have a disdain for being treated like a criminal.
Had you read my post carefully, you would have noted that I included the wait time for the train at Union Station and the wait time at BWI. The wait time at Union Station was longer because the persons responsible for security did not appear to have a clue about what they were supposed to do. The total wait time and hassle was much less at the airport. Unlike Amtrak's seemingly disorganized boarding procedures at Union Station, which has passengers creating a line that snakes onto the concourse, thereby blocking the free flow of other persons on the station concourse, there was no lining up at the airport gate because all the seats are assigned in advance. Like about 15 minutes on average less.
I don't know whether my experience can be extrapolated to others. I did not do a scientific survey, i.e. valid statistical sample, which is necessary to project the results to the population within the parameters of the statistical construct. Accordingly, I am not making any wild claims about the experience of others or the population as a whole.
zugmann Phoebe Vet: This coversation has run it's course. I'm out of here. Ladies and gentlemen, Phoebe Vet has left the thread.
Phoebe Vet: This coversation has run it's course. I'm out of here.
This coversation has run it's course. I'm out of here.
Ladies and gentlemen, Phoebe Vet has left the thread.
Praise be! Hopefully everyone will drop the sloganeering and rants. And base their views on evidence. Projecting a personal experience or view on to the population as a whole is invalid.
To determine what the population believes about a subject, one needs to take a valid statistical sample of the views of the people in the sample, understanding in the process how the results can be biased by a poorly constructed survey and analysis of the results. Otherwise, claiming that the American people are this or that is, well, amateurish at best and down right dishonest at worst.
Phoebe Vet This coversation has run it's course. I'm out of here.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
You don't need scientific information, just open your eyes and look around. Guns are selling like McDonalds hamburgers, people actually support the foolishness at the airport, people are afraid to let their kids go to the park without adult supervision for fear that some evil sex offender will get them, A registered sex offender just got arrested for attending church, People are being harassed for taking pictures of things that are in plain sight where anyone can see them. The approach to most schools looks like rush hour because so many people are afraid to let their kids either ride the school bus or walk. We have a military budget larger than the next 6 countries combined but both politicians and citizens want it expanded. You can't get into a theme park or the museums on the Mall in DC without getting your bags x-rayed or looked into by a guard.
We are definitely paranoid.
Phoebe Vet Just to clarify, I am not against REASONABLE security. At Union Station in DC, uniformed police officers, some of them with bomb sniffing dogs, patrol the station. They do not confront people unless they, or the dogs, see something suspicious. The only ID procedure is that you hold up your picture ID and your ticket as you walk through the door to the platform. THAT is reasonable security. Treating everyone like a criminal in case there might be a criminal somewhere is bizarre, paranoid, and against everything the USA has stood for since it was founded.
Just to clarify, I am not against REASONABLE security.
At Union Station in DC, uniformed police officers, some of them with bomb sniffing dogs, patrol the station. They do not confront people unless they, or the dogs, see something suspicious. The only ID procedure is that you hold up your picture ID and your ticket as you walk through the door to the platform.
THAT is reasonable security.
Treating everyone like a criminal in case there might be a criminal somewhere is bizarre, paranoid, and against everything the USA has stood for since it was founded.
I remember when one could board the train at Washington's Union Station without having to show any identification. I remember when a rail buff in New York could go down the east stairs at Penn Station and watch the Seaboard Airline's Silver Meteor leave for Miami. Using this experience as a guide, I could claim that the current procedures at Union Station and Penn Station are unreasonable.
Last week I showed and id and ticket to board my train from Washington's Union Station to Baltimore. The total time to clear security, given the uncontrolled lines at Union Station, was approximately two minutes, once the line starting to move. However, if one counts the time required to stand in line to get a seat in the quiet car, the total time was approximately 20 minutes.
Coming home from Baltimore on Southwest Airlines, I showed my id and ticket to the TSA. I took off my shoes, emptied my pockets, and passed through security in less than a minute. All up it took me about five minutes for the whole process, including putting my shoes back on, etc. There was no standing in line at the gate. All the seats were assigned in advance. All up the process at the airport was less of a hassle than the process at Union Station.
The procedures, given the risks, which most people would recognize are dramatically different for a railroad train than an airliner, are reasonable. Amongst other things risk managers understand the importance of fitting the controls, i.e. screening, to the magnitude of the risk.
Oh, from time to time the TSA makes a mistake. It hits the press, and immediately folks like you project it to the population as a whole, when in fact the number of over reactions on the part of the TSA is minute.
To describe your views as extreme would be mild. Mercifully, as someone has pointed out, you are not responsible for any form of transport security. Given your disdain for flying, as expressed on several occasions, I don't understand why you get so worked up about airport security. After all, it is not likely to touch you.
Motley Terrorism on the railroads is a real threat. Ah London... Everybody complains of civil liberties being taken, until something happens. Then after a railraod gets bombed, everyone will complain why didnt' they have securty. What the hell was our guys doing. That we pay them to protect us. What, so a security guard says hey no pictures. So what, go someplace else to take pics. There are plenty of other spots for railfans to take photos. I agree, we are a paranoid nation, but look what got us here. They came to our country and took thousands of lives.
Terrorism on the railroads is a real threat. Ah London...
Everybody complains of civil liberties being taken, until something happens. Then after a railraod gets bombed, everyone will complain why didnt' they have securty. What the hell was our guys doing. That we pay them to protect us.
What, so a security guard says hey no pictures. So what, go someplace else to take pics. There are plenty of other spots for railfans to take photos.
I agree, we are a paranoid nation, but look what got us here. They came to our country and took thousands of lives.
If you or anyone else posting to these forums have any scientific data to support the notion that "we are a paranoid nation", I would be happy to listen. Otherwise, claiming that Americans are paranoid is absurd. Your friends, who probably number fewer than 10, may be paranoid. But projecting their views on to the population as a whole does not wash.
Frankly, I am tired of people making unsupported claims. I gave that up when I was a sophomore. In high school!
PNWRMNM Rich, You are a prime example of how totalitarian regimes take over, bit by bit. You, who I will guess are not over 40 years old, probably do not remember the days when you could freely walk onto an air liner. I do and I remember the first hijacking, D. B. Cooper, in the Pacific Northwest. Frankly, I would feel better if the entire flight crew were packing .45's with hard plastic anti personnel rounds and I could carry on board with those same rounds. That would be at least as effective as what we are doing now, would cost less than 1% of what we are spending for those morons at TSA, and would cost no one their liberty. Unfortunately governments always want to restrict and control the population. By the way what "real and demonstrated" terrorist threat to railroads have I missed? Mac
You are a prime example of how totalitarian regimes take over, bit by bit. You, who I will guess are not over 40 years old, probably do not remember the days when you could freely walk onto an air liner. I do and I remember the first hijacking, D. B. Cooper, in the Pacific Northwest.
Frankly, I would feel better if the entire flight crew were packing .45's with hard plastic anti personnel rounds and I could carry on board with those same rounds. That would be at least as effective as what we are doing now, would cost less than 1% of what we are spending for those morons at TSA, and would cost no one their liberty.
Unfortunately governments always want to restrict and control the population.
By the way what "real and demonstrated" terrorist threat to railroads have I missed?
Mac
Pistol packing crew and passengers! Wow! It is not difficult to imagine the consequences if gun totting passengers open fire on a suspected terrorist. If they are like most civilians, they would have many more misses than hits. And there is a good chance that they would shoot a number of passengers, as well as each other, before they figured out that there was no threat.
A couple of weeks ago there was a shoot-out on the Texas Eagle in Dallas. The police, who we are told are supposedly professionals, shot a bad guy who had a pistol and drew it. In the process the police, again supposedly trained to respond appropriately, hit the bad guy and a bystander.
The bad guy drew the suspicion of the police whilst he was in the Dallas Union Station. They suspected he was carrying drugs. Instead of stopping him in the station, where he could have been isolated easily, they waited until he boarded the train before approaching him. To repeat these are supposedly highly trained police officers. I would hate to think how gun totting civilians, who have had little if any real training in firearms, would over react on a crowed airplane.
PNWRMNM Rich, The first rule of hiring a consultant is to tell them what answer you want. If you have even been in the culture of Washington DC you know that. Mac
The first rule of hiring a consultant is to tell them what answer you want. If you have even been in the culture of Washington DC you know that.
The Rand Corporation is not a consulting firm. It is a nonprofit institution that helps to improve policy and decision making through independent research and analysis. It focuses on issues such as health, education, national security, international affairs, etc. It operates independtly of political and commercial pressures. It is a totally independent and nonpartisan organization that employs a research staff of some of the world's preeminent minds.
Don't be so quick to put it down.
Ed,
Elloquent and accurate as always.
tdmidget And for morons they're doing pretty well: Transportation Security Officer (TSO) Quick View | More Like This Do you desire to protect American interests and secure our Nation while building a meaningful and rewarding career? If so, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is calling. DHS components work collectively to prevent terrorism, secure borders, enforce and administer immigration laws, safeguard c Agency: Transportation Security Administration Location: Blountville,Tennessee Salary: $29,131.00 to $43,697.00 / Per Year Open Period: Friday, December 16, 2011 to Monday, January 16, 2012 Same pay rate in the lower 48
And for morons they're doing pretty well:
Do you desire to protect American interests and secure our Nation while building a meaningful and rewarding career? If so, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is calling. DHS components work collectively to prevent terrorism, secure borders, enforce and administer immigration laws, safeguard c
Agency:
Location:
Salary:
Open Period:
Friday, December 16, 2011 to Monday, January 16, 2012
Same pay rate in the lower 48
I think I know how we can take a really big bite out of the deficit. Charlotte Douglas Airport alone has 500 of these guys and millions of dollars worth of x-ray machines. That is at just ONE airport.
I am going to jump in here before this gets locked.
Yup, I am too young to remember WWII, but my father served in the US Navy, from 1939 on through the early 70s, so I grew up with the stuff...
Sure, the US detained and incarcerated the Nisi, and oddly, did nothing to the German immigrants, which would have included my grandfather, and just as odd, no credible incident of the Nisi ever participating in espionage or sabotage is found, but several instances of the German National Socialist Party(silly forum wont allow Naz*) landing groups of saboteurs abound, along with those wonderful masters of the constitutional right to assemble, the American Bund, who marched in goose stepping rallies, displayed the Swastika, portraits of Adolf Hitler, and managed to survive well into the 50s.
Our local director of the TSA rail security detail is quite willing to talk, he in fact loves to BS more than anyone I know.
Want to know where the 6 rail inspectors that work under him came from?
The FDA...4 of them were meat /poultry inspectors, one was a security guard at their office, and one is a college grad hired off the street, whose father in law is a city councilman here.
He was the chief inspector and officer manager, whose main duties were administration and such.
He (in his own words) would probably end up shooting himself by accident if he ever had to draw his sidearm.
He will happily explain that he thinks his job is great, he does not ever expect to find a terrorist here, nor does he expect to find a IED on a railcar...as he says, as long as the government tells him to check for TIH cars and keep track of them, that's exactly what he plans on doing until he retires in 5 years, as long as the paycheck keep coming in and don't bounce, he will pretend to keep checking for home grown terrorist.
He has pulled his sidearm from its holster 3 times in the last six years, each time to clean it.
He even asked me if ammo has a shelf life and can it expire...(yes to both questions by the way)
I feel no more secure now than I did before 9/11.
In fact, I fear our government more, and fear that my liberty will be encroached on more and more above and beyond any fear I have of a terrorist attack.
The Salem Witch trials should have taught us a lesson, as should the enforced relocation of the Nisi...if you look long enough and hard enough for witches, you can convince yourself there is a witch under every rock.
And yes, by the way, some putz at the TSA reads this forum, and about six other railroad forums, every day as part of his duties, he is looking for potential suspects gathering information.
He also reads aviation forums and ship forums looking for the "odd" questions by members who are not well known.
You tax dollars at work..yes, big brother is watching and reading too.
Folks, the fight isn't here...the 9/11 attacks were based on luck, a real cruddy plan that just happened to work, and the one thing the bad guys knew from the start...no one would try and stop them once they began, they expected everyone on the planes to sit and wait for someone, anyone else to do something, which they did, except on small group of guys on one flight.
They counted on the passengers to be meek, and the pilots to be weak, and it worked.
Come on, they had box cutters and nail clipper for gosh sakes...
As for TSA security at air ports, trust me, if I has a Bic pen, I could kill you...in fact, I could kill you with no weapon at all, or find something on board to use...it isn't about what we carry with us, it's about the person and his determination, if he is a fanatic, he can bring down a plane with no weapon at all and nothing the TSA will ever do can stop that.
Again, the fight isn't here, its over there.
The Israelis could teach us a thing or two about airport security.
Most passengers boarding flights there are never searched or questioned or even know they are being watched, and passengers will tell you they feel secure all the same.
That's because Israeli security is trained, and trained well, to go about their business with minimum interference to the passenger or operations.
And it works.
Every time you allow one of your civil liberties and your civil rights to be removed or infringed upon, even in the name of national security, this nation, your nation become less secure, less strong and less able to defend itself, because the people being harassed and detained isn't the bad guys, it us, the citizens, and as soon as we start asking citizens to start spying on each other and creating internal turmoil and distrust, then the bad guys will have won again.
After all, it's our way of life, our values and our prosperity they hate and despise and want to destroy, and it seems we are more than happy to help them achieve their goal.
I have to go into the courthouse every month to pay alimony.
A few years ago, an idiot criminal got hold of a pen-knife and stabbed the Assistant District Attorney in the back... Thankfully the Asst. DA was not seriously injured (they had to make him go to the hospital to be checked out).
But, now there is a metal detector at the door and ALMOST everybody has to go through it. There is a big sign at the entrance that states absolutely no weapons of any kind are allowed, including pen-knives, knitting needles, fingernail files, scissors, toenail clippers and lots of other stuff.
Before I go in I have to empty my pockets of all the fluff and lint I normally carry... A Swiss Army Knife being the most lethal, but I also have to leave my 6-in machinist's ruler out in the car. I am, however, permitted to bring in a ball point pen to fill out and sign my check to be presented to the Clerk of Court (nice bunch of ladies there! [and I really mean that!])
But two things bother me...
One) I don't know ANY of the people standing around with Guns on their hips. I can understand, my being a stranger in the place (after all I am only there once per month) that nobody knows me or that I am just a harmless, fat old man, but all those armed people are, likewise, complete strangers to ME, I seldom see that same one twice in a row and I have no idea if they are there to protect me or shoot me. Granted, most all have some sort of uniform on, but I can't tell the difference between a State Trooper, a Sheriff, a city Policeman and a Boyscout Master, or someone on their way to a masquerade ball.
Two) One time I watched as another total stranger (to me) came in behind me, sat his briefcase on the floor next to (and outside of) the metal detector, climbed over the rope barrier, picked up the briefcase from the other side and continued on his way. One of the fellows bristling with firearms, just smiled and tipped his hat.
The only weapons I am allowed to bring with me are my wit, charm, good looks and a ballpoint pen, so how am I more SECURE if that is all I have with which to defend myself from these people that don't know me and I don't know them if they have all the lethal weapons?
I am not advocating that I want to tow around a 105-MM Howitzer on my back, but I do NOT feel even the least bit secure when I am in there. I feel naked and vulnerable to the whim of strangers with deadly weapons!
I feel the same way about this situation at the Courthouse as I do about that video...
"Yer tax dollers et werk!"
That video seems like nothing more than the bureaucracy self-promoting a bigger role for itself by deputizing the public. If I took their advice to look for the signs and report them, I would see those signs everywhere.
Suspicious activity? If you are looking for terrorists, everything looks suspicious. And if the entire population went around reporting everything they could not explain, we would need a thousand new layers of the Homeland Security resource pie. That is the whole point.
I feel less safe knowing that what security we have is being diverted into this self-serving nonsense. Real security is invisible. It does not go around turning its citizens into amateur detective busy bodies.
So, here's the question: If you think that more security is better, would you be fine with being detained for taking photos of trains if you answered a question wrong?
Would you feel good about being arrested on suspicion of terrorism for taking photos near an oil refinery, and having to prove your innocence?
Would you be fine with anyone who is missing fingers, having more than 3 days worth of food, or owning a gun being candidates for suspicion of terrorism, and being held indefinitely without trial?
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
coborn35 But its really not though. Terrorists go for the big kill, not some po dunk local switching the industrys.
But its really not though. Terrorists go for the big kill, not some po dunk local switching the industrys.
I know of some locals that haul some nasty stuff. Plus they go to industries filled with even more. Lot of whacked-out people out there, unfortunately.
Motley Terrorism on the railroads is a real threat.
Terrorism on the railroads is a real threat.
But its really not though. Terrorists go for the big kill, not some po dunk local switching the industrys. I always laugh when the CN guys harass me. Im like dude, I hope the terrorists try to bomb the Missabe as opposed to other places. You know what you get when you blow up taconite pellets? More taconite pellets!
I will say that all the security at Amtrak is stupid and nieve. Its like the saying that no one steals anything in their own vehicle, they steal it in the company truck. If someone is going to vandalize a train, I can garuntee it wont happen at the station or on the train. Duh.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
And those that truly NEED to be drug tested and the 535 men and women that cast votes in Congress.
zardoz But now it's far too late to do anything about it; Big Brother has won, and there is nothing anybody can do about it anymore. I'm glad I am as old as I am, for what lies ahead of us is not pleasant to contemplate. Dystopia is not a place I care to call home. The young people today are lucky in one way: they have never lived without so much of their lives being monitored; thus they cannot miss what they never had.
But now it's far too late to do anything about it; Big Brother has won, and there is nothing anybody can do about it anymore. I'm glad I am as old as I am, for what lies ahead of us is not pleasant to contemplate. Dystopia is not a place I care to call home.
The young people today are lucky in one way: they have never lived without so much of their lives being monitored; thus they cannot miss what they never had.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Phoebe Vet Treating everyone like a criminal in case there might be a criminal somewhere is bizarre, paranoid, and against everything the USA has stood for since it was founded.
And yet accept it we did, all in the name of .....what, exactly? Safety? Security? Yeah, right. If you believe that, I have some property to sell you at a great price. Just because that moron Gates ran his locomotives in front of that Amtrak train, employees everywhere have had to subject themselves to such testing without due cause. Of course, technically the tests aren't mandatory; it's only mandatory if you want to keep your job. When, exactly, did it become acceptable for a company to dictate to its employees what they could or could not do in their own free time?
Phoebe Vet Motley: Everybody complains of civil liberties being taken, until something happens. Then after a railraod gets bombed, everyone will complain why didnt' they have securty. What the hell was our guys doing. That we pay them to protect us. Frightened people always assume that people who are not frightened just don't understand. I am a retired police officer from NY. My beliefs on civil liberties did not change after 9/11. I do not blame the government for the crimes committed on 9/11. If a violent crime is committed against a railroad I will not blame a lack of security, I will blame the criminals who did it. Your assumption is in error. It is just an attempt to project YOUR fear on others.
Motley: Everybody complains of civil liberties being taken, until something happens. Then after a railraod gets bombed, everyone will complain why didnt' they have securty. What the hell was our guys doing. That we pay them to protect us.
Frightened people always assume that people who are not frightened just don't understand.
I am a retired police officer from NY. My beliefs on civil liberties did not change after 9/11. I do not blame the government for the crimes committed on 9/11. If a violent crime is committed against a railroad I will not blame a lack of security, I will blame the criminals who did it.
Your assumption is in error. It is just an attempt to project YOUR fear on others.
LOL People don't kill. Guns do.
It's not about blame, PV, it is about prevention.
Motley Everybody complains of civil liberties being taken, until something happens. Then after a railraod gets bombed, everyone will complain why didnt' they have securty. What the hell was our guys doing. That we pay them to protect us.
PNWRMNM I am still waiting for that real and demonstrated threat to railroad security. Mac
I am still waiting for that real and demonstrated threat to railroad security.
This study was presented by the highly respected Rand Corporation prior to the Madrid and Chechen terrorist train bombings. The threat to rail security has only increased since then.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2005/RAND_CT224.pdf
Phoebe Vet Just to clarify, I am not against REASONABLE security. At Union Station in DC, uniformed police officers, some of them with bomb sniffing dogs, patrol the station. They do not confront people unless they, or the dogs, see something suspicious. The only ID procedure is that you hold up your picture ID and your ticket as you walk through the door to the platform.
Hmmm, I wonder what Ben Franklin and William Pitt would think about that?
richhotrain Neither one of us is old enough to recall WWII when our government found it necessary to take certain precautionary steps to protect its citizentry.
Neither one of us is old enough to recall WWII when our government found it necessary to take certain precautionary steps to protect its citizentry.
Are you referring to when the government rounded up American citizens of Japanese descent and held them in camps? That was another example of paranoid over reaction. There are people in this country right now who would do the same thing to American born Muslims if they thought they could get away with it.
FYI:
There are 500 TSA agents at the Charlotte airport alone. That fact was in this morning's paper in an article about 4 of them being fired because they missed rummaging through some checked bags.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12/17/2856055/tsa-fires-4-charlotte-agents.html
Food for thought:
In September 2001 more people died on US highways than died at the WTC.
The panic stricken response is WAY out of proportion to the actual threat.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin, 1755, to the Pennsylvania State Legislature Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt, 1783
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin, 1755, to the Pennsylvania State Legislature
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt, 1783
PNWRMNM That would be at least as effective as what we are doing now, would cost less than 1% of what we are spending for those morons at TSA, and would cost no one their liberty.
That would be at least as effective as what we are doing now, would cost less than 1% of what we are spending for those morons at TSA, and would cost no one their liberty.
Maybe not their liberty, but how about their lives?
Late 60's, Mac, if you must know. And a political science major and lawyer, to boot.
Your comment about me being a "prime example" is so laughable that I won't take the bait nor will I be offended.
Neither one of us is old enough to recall WWII when our government found it necessary to take certain precautionary steps to protect its citizentry. If we all thought like you, we would still be wearing coon skin caps and carrying a musket to hunt for our dinner.
PNWRMNM For once I agree with Phoebe Vet.
For once I agree with Phoebe Vet.
LOL That is a cause for concern.
There is of course a trade off of liberty and personal security. The problem is two fold. First we have lost lots of liberty. Second is for that loss we have got much more the illusion of safety than real safety. Do you really think that making airport screeners Federal Employees increased security at airports? If we cared about security we would openly and proudly profile and pay a lot more attentiion to young Arab Men than to Grandmas in wheel chairs. There was a time you could just walk onto an airplane without having to allow for an hour of secutity theater. We lost a lot of liberty in that one.
Now we have a whole Department of these knuckleheads running around trying to justify their jobs, which we are paying for. The result is the kind of claptrap described.
For once I agree with Phoebe Vet. We are becoming a nation of chicken littles who accept loss of freedom for the illusion of security. Shame on us!
Mac McCulloch
Ahhh, so politically, you are a Libertarian?
If they made me the Director of Homeland Security I would dismantle it.
Well, then, let's just hope that you are never the Director of Homeland Security.
No.
It is idiotic to consider it suspicious to photograph something that is in plain sight.
I am not defending someones right to trespass. That is an entirely different matter.
I don't see any difference between a person photographing a train in plain sight and a railroad photographing a person with a camera or binoculars on public property.
Phoebe Vet The country continues to sink into the swamp of paranoia. We live in a country where we suspect people of being criminals if they take pictures of things that you can see from a public street. Our national obsession with "security" is becoming a mental illness.
Well now, isn't that quaint...the "example" of "surveliance" activity they use in this video shows a railfan with binoculars and camera(s) watching Metra train activity in Hill Yard in my home town of Aurora, IL. The Aurora police are going to be busy questioning such "suspcious" folks as there are typically numerous railfans in and around Aurora's BNSF tracks and yards...especially on weekends...exercising their railfan hobby, and that includes ME! If I see an increase in folks watching us watch trains I'll be sure to report it here. Stand by.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.