Street Photographer...Not a Terrorist

[Andy K]

George, on 9/11 I was back home. A month previously I was at the top of the WTC. I still see the faces of those who worked there.
On 9/11, the very same day as that atrocity, our government pledged to stand by the US. The SAME DAY. Where were you when the Nazis dropped thousands of tons of bombs on Britain through 1939-40 as your government looked on for a year?

Now let me ask you, where were you when Irish terrorist bombs were going off in pubs, shops and streets all across Britain right through the 70s, 80s and 90s? Where were you during the Rwandan genocide? Where were you when the Madrid bombs went off? Where were you when the Bali bombs went off? Where were you when hundreds of children died in Beslan? Where were you when three tube trains and a bus were blown to pieces in London? Where were you when the many car bombs targeted at civilians went off, and continue to go off, in Iraq?

George, you are not the only person who's life has been touched by terrorism. Terrorism is not new to many of us, some of us, just the same as the families of the 9/11 victims, have lost family to terrorism (in my own case a cousin lost to the Irish terrorists. Who financed that bomb George? Did you put money in the pot in your favourite NY Irish bar George?).

But even after all that, we are still there with the US in Iraq. Our young people are there, dying alongside yours.

So please stop your pathetic martyr's bleating about 'Where were you on 9/11?' 🙄

 

[Jason Sprenger]

Is making a photograph harm?
No.

Can a photograph be used as a tool to cause harm?
Indirectly.

Consequently, photography poses an indirect threat to cause harm.

Does photography pose a sufficient indirect threat to justify government control?
Photography is not significantly more threatening than any other form of observation.

Therefore, in a publically observable area, the control of photography is not justified.

 

[Andy K]

Further, as you folks in Canada are so ready to point out, unlike you, there is a much larger proportion of Americans who believe in God and are religious. While I am not among them, I do know that these folks are a very powerful element within American society.

They are not as powerful as the Masonic Occultists who run Washington DC. 😉

Look on Google Earth and see the Whitehouse Pentagram and Capitol Masonic Compasses marked out in the street layout for yourself.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

When I first started this thread, I was relating an incident that happened to me as it relates to the current climate of "fear" in this country. It was not meant to be a political debate as it seems that it has now turned into. When I mention fear- I am talking about real fear that a lot of Americans have since 9-11 and also about the abuse of authority using this "fear" against Americans themselves. I have related this story to several different people and on one other website that is based in Texas.

You have to remember that our current President is from my home state, and even though more and more Texans are turning against this administration, if you voice your displeasure against this administration, you are still in the minority down here in Texas. When I posted this story on the other website, I was called an a**hole, an unpatriotic scumbag, told to move to Irag if I didn't like my country, etc, etc, etc..... I even received emails from a couple of police officers that frequent that website and was told that no police officer would ever do what I described. Their emails basically implied that there are no bad cops. One of the cops that emailed me even went so far as to say he felt sorry for me and that I must be delusional.

My reply to the people who criticised me was this, and I continue to stand by this 100%- I was not stopped that day for suspicious behavior, I was stopped because a police officer did not like a shirt I was wearing. That's it. Plain and simple. Would this have happened pre 9-11? I don't think so. Would the shirt I was wearing have ever been made pre 9-11, no.

I love my country with all of my heart. I am a real patriot. And it hurts when people call me unpatriotic because I don't agree with their views. What is wrong with wanting your country to do better, to strive to be the best it can be, to be a beacon of hope, to be a true bastion of freedom?

I will be in Crawford Texas April 15, shooting the planned anti-war protest over the Easter weekend. I was there last August at Camp Casey documenting what I saw. This past weekend, I shot several anti-war marches. Unfortunately, we had terrible weather in the Dallas area- massive rain storms and severe flooding- so the turnout was extremely low. But a few people came, they listened to the speakers and they marched in terrible conditions. The rain was coming down so hard that at times it was almost blinding. They were old and they were young and I know that mixed in with those rain drops were a few tears as well. We are all patriots. We love our country.

 

[Andy K]

Rick, I saw this written somewhere, I don't remember where, but it holds true the world over...

Dissent is patriotic too.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Indeed, our nation was founded in dissent.

 

[anselwannab]

Rick, post 9/11, pre-9/11, you mouth of to a cop, especially a city cop, and you are asking for it, you all but admitted it yourself. Ain't saying that its right, not going to change anytime soon. And we all know that people in Texas don't do something with out "fixin' " to do it first. That shirt was your way of fixin' for a fight. If you knock on the Devil's door enough, don't be suprised when he answers. Be happy, you get to be a Leica M-artyr, get a good story to tell all your buddies, and have one more reason to hate "W".


Oddly, in the context of these post, more and more cameras and video phones are more apt to change cops tune than anything. The last thing they want is to end up on the evening news. Cops don't get to have fun anymore now in traffic stops b/c all the cars are wired for sound and video. How'd you like your boss not not only berate you, but to be able to do it slow motion, repeatedly.

Somebody on Page 3 said that the Commerce Clause was somehow allowing business to run rough-shod over the government. Are you serious? The Commerce Clause is one the main ways that the government sticks its nose into things. If something affects businesses, or workers, and that can be shown to in anyway, somehow be tied to trade between the states, BANG the federal government is in on the party. If I'm not mistaken one rationale for Brown V Board of Education was that if some citizens didn't get equal education oppportunities, this could affect their future job prospects and thus affect interstate trade. (Don't be a dumb @ss and label me a racist, I'm just making a point about the extent of the Commerce Clause.)

I had a business law class and I asked the proff. about the Commerce Clause and what it wouldn't allow the federal government to control. He refused answer, flat out said he refused to answer, he thought I was trying to trick him. I just really wanted to know. Capitalism isn't written into the Constitution. Between the Commerce clause and Income taxes we could have a real "red" socialist economy here too.

Of course I could be wrong, not only was I negative 9 when the Brown V Board ruling came down, I went to public schools.

 

[Andy K]

Rick, post 9/11, pre-9/11, you mouth of to a cop, especially a city cop, and you are asking for it, you all but admitted it yourself. Ain't saying that its right, not going to change anytime soon. And we all know that people in Texas don't do something with out "fixin' " to do it first. That shirt was your way of fixin' for a fight. If you knock on the Devil's door enough, don't be suprised when he answers.

No policeman has a right to harrass someone because of the clothing they choose to wear (unless perhaps they choose to wear no clothing, but even then there is room for debate). All Rick did was answer the cop's question. How is that grounds for being harrassed?

Between the Commerce clause and Income taxes we could have a real "red" socialist economy here too.

That would match the real 'Soviet' style policing you appear to be increasingly subjected to. I say 'you' because here in Britain we don't have police in cars stopping innocent people purely because they wear a particular T-shirt. Yes, security is heightened, but if a copper hassled me because of a T-shirt I wouldn't hesitate to tell him to p*** off and find some real criminals to bother.

The police are there to stop crime and protect the public, they are not there to creat an atmosphere of fear for the law abiding. And that is exactly what they are doing if you change the slightest thing in your life for fear of being hassled by the police.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

To Anselwannab- to begin with I don't own a Leica 🙁 , although I wish I did! I do not consider myself a martyr. I have said many times that I could have handled the situation much better than I did. I do not hate George W.- just think he is a bad President. My premise is this and has always been this- I was wearing a shirt the officer did not approve of and therefore he stopped me. It is that simple. Whenever someone brings up the fact that I was looking for a fight, no one ever mentions the officer in Ft. Worth who walked up to me and asked me what the shirt said and then burst out laughing when I showed it to him. Obviously he understood that it was just a goofy t-shirt. He did not take it personal and use his authority to stop, hassle, and detain me because he objected to it.

You are close by in Colorado, come down to Crawford on April 15 and join in and witness the people exercising their right to freedom of expression. It is called democracy and it is a beautiful thing. Some of us want to keep it that way. Every now and then you have to pound on that devil's door to wake him up. Sometimes that is not such a bad thing. 🙂

 

[anselwannab]

Andy- re-read either Rick's original quote or a follow-on, he states that when he responded to the cop he took a sarcastic tone with him. Not saying its right, what I'm saying is that what happened has less to do with the message of the shirt (which yes did start the conversation) and has more to do with how Rick responded to the cop. Like I said, it isn't right, but that's what happens when you mouth off to cops. I live here in Denver now, but grew up in Chicago. Get lippy with a Chicago cop? Unhealthy. Not saying it's right, that's just cops. Got nothing little to do with 9/11 and "W" as some of the posts imply. See in Rick's post above, a first cop thought it was funny. So much for a grand conspiracy to start the fourth Reich.

Rick- You aren't the only one that is "Leica challenged", I just liked the "M-artyr" thing 😉 I feel for you. There are lots of times I realized that there was a better way to deal with a question afterwards. I was on a job interview and they asked me if I had kids, my stock answer is, " None that I know of." Kind of funny in a bar, not the best in a boardroom. Anyway, have fun in Crawford. I'd get that protesting done before it gets hot, or DFW gets swept away in another flood. I'd rather hang out with a Texas liberal, than a New England conservative, I like queso over chowder.

 

[Andy K]

I don't think the shirt started the conversation. I think an intolerant person in uniform overstepped the bounds of their authority when they saw something they personally did not like. Rick was doing nothing illegal, and would not have responded sarcastically if the cop had not been a jerk.
If this happened in Afghanistan, and it was Sharia police hassling someone for wearing the wrong colour headscarf, I might understand it (but would still not agree with it).

 

[ch1]

Actually the operation was carried out by a multinational force led by British troops and members of the RCMP.

Also, I do want to visit your country. My objection is to being fingerprinted like a criminal when I arrive. Visitors from the US are not greeted in such a way here.

Yes, I read your article. You seemed to have ignored the term "multi-national". Even a writer for the BEEB would agree that the term "multi" requires more than two. Oh I'm certain your paraphrased headline was simply an oversight. 🙄

Try reading CNN or some other responsible news outlets. The BEEB lost a lot of credibility a long time ago - seeing how it is simply Oxbridge Left - particularly its "Near East section". It would likely sink into oblivion if they ever removed its government subsidy via those stupid license fees!

RCMP assistance in logistics is nice. And yes, Brit troops were present. They often seem to be there to hold the coats of the American soldiers during operations.

Andy, you are so such a classic "Old Labourite" that they should put you in a museum as you clearly have no relevance to the 21st Century! I'll bet you used to go on those anti-nuke marches back during the Cold War.

Ah the '60's: demos, Beatles and granny glasses. Sorry to say, those days are gone for good.

Oh and so what that you don't want to visit the US anymore because you don't want to be fingerprinted. Actually it's optically scanned - but we know about you and the 21st Century not seeing eye to eye.

So, don't visit here. The town is so full of Euro tourists that you seem to a an army of one on that crusade!

 

[ch1]

Oooh, oooh - I knew I'd get your goat with that one! 😛

Actually, for news I mainly rely on The Times (er....The New York Times, that is - not that one in London owned by that nasty Mr. Murdoch!) 😀

 

[Andy K]

The BEEB lost a lot of credibility a long time ago - seeing how it is simply Oxbridge Left - particularly its "Near East section". It would likely sink into oblivion if they ever removed its government subsidy via those stupid license fees!

The licence fee makes the BBC accountable to the public, the viewers. Unlike commercial TV which has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator in order to get viewing figures that satisfy it's sponsors. Commercial TV is also a slave to whatever political bent its sponsors want pushed. Publicly funded TV is not.

RCMP assistance in logistics is nice. And yes, Brit troops were present. They often seem to be there to hold the coats of the American soldiers during operations.

Is this is the US attitude to its allies putting the lives of its troops on the line for them?

 

[ch1]

The licence fee makes the BBC accountable to the public, the viewers. Unlike commercial TV which has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator in order to get viewing figures that satisfy it's sponsors. Commercial TV is also a slave to whatever political bent its sponsors want pushed. Publicly funded TV is not.



Is this is the US attitude to its allies putting the lives of its troops on the line for them?

They why not make the fee VOLUNTARY since the public, being so well-served, would gladly contribute anyway? :angel:

That's how we do it here....albeit it does make for some boresome fund raising programming.....

As to your other point. Huh? First you deny that the US led the operation (which it did) or was even there. Now you want me to be nice, nice.

I'd just as soon pull everyone's troops out - I didn't want them there in the first place. And I know the Brits have been there since the beginning.

But since the Canuks made a big deal about how they would never send troops to Iraq it's more than a bit disingenuous to try and give the RCMP "credit" for an action to which they provided, at best, intelligence.

 

[Andy K]

Ok, how about Reuters "information extracted from a prisoner led to British troops' rescue of three Christian peace activist"

Or maybe The Washington Post

"Circumstances of the rescue operation, which was spearheaded by the British, were being closely held."

It is obvious to the entire world this was a British led operation, for a few reasons. 1, No shots were fired, 2, all involved managed not to shoot members of their allies forces, 3, the town was left standing, 4, the operation was a complete success.

 

[ch1]

Ok, how about Reuters "information extracted from a prisoner led to British troops' rescue of three Christian peace activist"

It is obvious to the entire world this was a British led operation, for a few reasons. 1, No shots were fired, 2, all involved managed not to shoot members of their allies forces, 3, the town was left standing, 4, the operation was a complete success.

Andy,

Nothing is ever "obvious to the entire world". Gosh if that isn't a naive statement.

As to British operations. Well at least it was smoother than when that special terrorist squad in London pumped six slugs into the head of that poor sucker Portugese immigrant because he "looked" like a terrorist.

 

[Andy K]

Well, that was a complete foul up, yes. But it hardly compares with the hundreds of 'friendly fire' incidents, where US troops and the US Air Farce have fired on and bombed British, Australians, Canadians, Italians... anyone, it seems, except Osama.

Btw Charles Menezes was Brazilian. You really must stop getting your world view from Nickelodeon George.

 

[ch1]

Well, that was a complete foul up, yes. .....

Ah, "foul up". A wonderfully quaint British understatement for "blowing away some poor unarmed SOB"!

If that had happened here in the US the looney lefties of the British Labour Party would be up in arms decrying an atrocity symptomatic of a sick American capitalsitic hegemonic society! 😛

 

[Andy K]

Ah, "foul up". A wonderfully quaint British understatement for "blowing away some poor unarmed SOB"!

If that had happened here in the US the looney lefties of the British Labour Party would be up in arms decrying an atrocity symptomatic of a sick American capitalsitic hegemonic society! 😛

Kent State.