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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Alton Junction
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?
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?
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.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
richhotrainMost 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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...
I've never heard of any. Have you?
No, I was just wondering if you had. That is what this issue is always brushing up against.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
So, you subscribe to the extreme view that our government should do nothing?
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.
richhotrain So, you subscribe to the extreme view that our government should do nothing? Rich
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.
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 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
What other enabled measures do you speak of?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
You are doing it again. I have not seen anyone take the position you have stated above, and are arguing against.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.