The Patriot Act: Protecting America From Photographers
	found on 2600.com written by destiny, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 8 Dec 1:42pm
		"Denver police allegedly detained a man who photographed Dick Cheney's hotel. Though his only crime was refusing to hand over his camera, he was detained in an interrogation room—alone—for two hours. A Secret Service agent then 'told Maginnis that his "suspicious activities" made him a threat to national security,' according to this article, 'and that he would be charged as a terrorist under the USA-PATRIOT act.' After approximately an hour of interrogation, Maginnis was allowed to make a telephone call. Rather than contacting a lawyer, he called the Denver Post and asked for the news desk. This was immediately overheard by the desk sergeant, who hung up the phone and placed Maginnis in a holding cell. "It wasn't until another three hours later that he was released—and '[h]e received no copy of an arrest report, and no receipt for his confiscated possessions.' There's an audio interview with Maginnis here. "The question I'd like to ask: are there stories at the grass roots level like this that we simply aren't hearing? Whatever you think of this particular anecdote: Is the Patriot Act being used against citizens - and, more importantly, would we know about it? A related question: would these citizens have any recourse?" On a state level, laws against the photographing of sensitive sites are enforced, perhaps understandably; but is a new ad hoc clampdown in evidence?

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 39 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Why is the needle in my BS meter in the red zone?   by MAYORBOB       at Sun 8 Dec 2:05pm score of 2 astute     Maybe, no confirmation from anyone other than Maginnis and a few out there media sources. Maybe the fact that the intrepid reporters were able to identify Army Rangers serving on the Veep's detail (I guess the Secret Service wasn't properly briefed on his latest "undisclosed" location). Maybe the language of the supposed Secret Service agent that is reported and the overheated threat to arrest and charge Maginnis under the PATRIOT-USA law. Maybe, despite all of this, they let him go after five hours to tell his tale of woe to 2600. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Other than that, a highly entertaining read. Gee, I wonder why the Secret Service wouldn't return calls from a media superpower like 2600? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: Why is the needle in my BS meter in the red   by Anywhere       at Sun 8 Dec 3:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Thanks, MAYORBOB. The Army Ranger thing was the first thing to bother me, too. I had an exchange with Nephthys while this is was in the subq, and I'm willing to believe that something may have happened. Maginnis' version, however, smells strongly of gross exaggeration and/or plea for attention. Gateway computers are pieces of shit, and their customer service is abysmal. Ask me why if you want to hear me vent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Why is the needle in my BS meter in the red   by Nephthys       at Sun 8 Dec 5:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     As I told Anywhere, I wouldn't know an Army Ranger if one came up and bit me. I don't know uniforms. I just know that there were uniforms, guns, and identical dark suits. I processed this as "police, military types, secret service types". I wish I would have paid more attention at the time, but I wasn't sure what I was seeing, I just knew that it had made me an hour late for work. Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Why is the needle in my BS meter in the red   by rough ashler       at Tue 10 Dec 6:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     I wouldn't know an Army Ranger if one came up and bit me They do that, ya know. Bite. And, they don't even need orders. If they ARE ordered to bite, they bite with relish.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Why is the needle in my BS meter in the red   by wozz       at Tue 10 Dec 2:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     FWIW, I work across the street from the hotel in question. There was a very evident uniformed military presence in the entire area for the duration of the conference (all week). Now, I would suspect they were National Guard, since they were there when Cheney wasn't in town, and the conference was a Air National Guard leadership convention, but who knows. But yes, there were uniformed soldiers on the streets. I even got yelled at by one for walking down a public street that had apparently been closed to traffic.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Charged under the Patriot Act?   by profwhat       at Sun 8 Dec 2:11pm score of 1.5 interesting     Whatever you think of this particular anecdote: Is the Patriot Act being used against citizens - and, more importantly, would we know about it? I haven't read the entire Patriot Act (who has?) but no summary of it that I have read says that the Act actually defines a crime -- that is, it's not a criminal statute. Instead, it defines police and FBI powers. (Someone please let me know if I am missing something). It's therefore odd that this guy was told he would be charged under the PATRIOT act. It's possible that either a) he misheard, or b) the agent who said that was talking out of his ass or trying to intimidate the guy. Unfounded arrests happened before the PATRIOT act and will continue to happen after it. If this guy can prove his case, he has a lawsuit, and I'm not sure the PATRIOT act has anything to say about that. It's a screwed up act, but not that screwed up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: Charged under the Patriot Act?   by NH4       at Sun 8 Dec 7:05pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 2     "If this guy can prove his case," Profwhat, he has supernatural powers. What physical evidence could he possibly produce? Since the police won't even acknowledge arresting him or stealing his property, it's his word against as many witnesses as the government feels like producing. He's screwed, and the government can do this to anyone they like, whenever they like. Even if Maginnis COULD somehow present enough evidence to make any of his allegations seem plausible, it would do him no special good. A few years ago when I lived in Nevada, a few of the workers at Area 51 (near Mercury, Nevada, north of Las Vegas) filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Navy charging that they had become ill because of materials they had handled while on the job. In response to the suit, the government didn't dispute that the employees worked at the base or that they had been injured on the job, but that there was no Area 51 and that the plaintiffs worked on classified projects. The case was dismissed without any further proceedings, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. So, if the government is willing to trot out "national security" as a rationale for any particular outrage, it can get away with absolutely anything.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Charged under the Patriot Act?   by profwhat       at Mon 9 Dec 6:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     What physical evidence could he possibly produce? Since the police won't even acknowledge arresting him or stealing his property, it's his word against as many witnesses as the government feels like producing. The audio interview with Maginnis points out a couple of ways that he could prove his case. He says he was fingerprinted, so they very likely will still have his fingerprints on file. He was also photographed. It would be illegal for them to destroy those fingerprints and photographs. If they still have those fingerprints and photographs, Maginnis has physical evidence. He doesn't need physical evidence, either. If he is able to describe his surroundings when he was taken into custody, or to accurately describe the appearances of people he saw, that could be persuasive, too. If it does get down to a his-word-against-their-word situation, ask yourself, if you were on the jury, who you would believe. The national security defense isn't a sure shot each time. If they want to invoke it over a military base in Nevada, a judge will be sympathetic. If they want to invoke it over the Adams Mark Hotel in Denver, a judge will be much more skeptical.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Charged under the Patriot Act?   by NH4       at Mon 9 Dec 12:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     "It would be illegal for them to destroy those fingerprints and photographs." It would ALSO be illegal to steal a Nikon camera, Profwhat. (It would also, e.g., be illegal to trade arms for hostages in Iran and send the proceeds of the deal to the Contras, or to lie in a deposition about one's sex life. Lots of stuff our leaders and police agencies do is illegal, but that doesn't really count for much.) What are we going to do about it? If Maginnis could accurately describe his surroundings during detention, all that would prove was that he had been in detention at some time in the past. If he could accurately describe the people who interrogated him, all it would prove was that he had seen those people at some time, possibly in the street while he was taking photographs. If his fingerprints were on file, all it would prove is that he had been fingerprinted at some point in his life (as has anyone who has ever held a federal or state job, anyone who has ever been arrested for anything, anyone who had a parent fingerprint them for ID purposes, et alia). As for a jury, he wouldn't get that far on the present (or any imaginable future) state of the evidence. I wish you were right that "[t]he national security defense isn't a sure shot each time," but I challenge you to come up with a single example of it failing in the last few decades. Agent Orange? Gulf War Syndrome? Irradiation of soldiers during atomic testing in the 1950s and 1960s? Most of the victims of "national security" might just as well claim that they were abducted by aliens for all the good it does them. Invoking "national security" over the Adams Mark Hotel in downtown Denver may seem like the most ludicrous and insubstantial possible example, but I wouldn't bet 50 cents that even a "skeptical" judge would screw with the national security establishment. If you were in such a judge's position, would you risk your career over some guy claiming his Nikon got stolen?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Charged under the Patriot Act?   by profwhat       at Mon 9 Dec 7:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     It would ALSO be illegal to steal a Nikon camera, Profwhat. If the Denver police, in cooperation with the Secret Service, have conspired to destroy all physical evidence of this guy's arrest, and have conspired with everyone involved to get their lies straight to contradict this guy on the stand, then I would agree that he's fucked. I would also agree that Denver lacks effective control over its police force. Now, do you think they've done that? If so, why do you think that? I challenge you to come up with a single example of it failing in the last few decades. The Pentagon Papers case leaps to mind.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Charged under the Patriot Act?   by NH4       at Mon 9 Dec 10:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     I don't think it would require quite the level of conspiratorial sophistication you describe, Profwhat. But as for why I might think that his camera is gone forever, the police have already said that there is no record of any arrest. Either Maginnis is lying (maybe) or the police are lying (also a maybe, in my book), but either way, the story is over. I have previously told the story of representing a man who's store in Anchorage, Alaska, was raided by the IRS. (Perhaps you remember it.) After IRS staff conducted its inventory of what had been seized, one-third of the man's merchandise was unaccounted for. During a later unscheduled visit to the IRS district office in Anchorage, we saw IRS employees wearing some of the missing merchandise, which they quickly and nervously removed. The IRS denied all wrongdoing. Nothing could ever be proven. So I know from personal experience that federal police agencies are fully capable of theft and subsequent cover-ups. The Pentagon Papers were already appearing in print when the government went to court to try to stop their publication. If the government had succeeded in having them suppressed, there would have been political hell to pay. But thanks for the example. I pray to God you are right that "national security" won't continue to successfully protect corrupt and abusive government officials.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Charged under the Patriot Act?   by profwhat       at Tue 10 Dec 5:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     I didn't realize that the Denver police had denied the arrest (I thought they just didn't respond to the intrepid 2600 reporter's comments). Another more recent national security case came to mind after my last post: The Dec. 4 "Jose Padilla" detention case. There, the judge rejected the argument that national security interests required keeping detainees from seeing their lawyers. Either way, I agree, this is probably the last we'll hear of the case (except that it will become a mini urban legend).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Charged under the Patriot Act?   by fungrrl       at Mon 9 Dec 10:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     A good book to read to get an idea of what the patriot act is about: It's a Free Country, edited by Danny Goldberg. It offers up a wide variety of opinions (Ani Defranco and Micheal Moore, to Republican senators) and personal experience. I have amazing news for you. Man is not alone on this planet. -Ishmael   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  I was in the area   by Nephthys       at Sun 8 Dec 2:20pm score of 2.5 informative     Although I was not present for the alledged incident, I have the following observations to make. Some of these are mine, some are from friends who were also in the area at the time. Police and other armed presence in the area was very high, as were the men who talk into their sleeves. There were snipers on the roofs of nearby buildings. Car and foot traffic was being diverted around and away from the Adams Mark hotel. The pedestrian mall near there (16th Street Mall) had a patrol car at every intersection along its entire length (several blocks). Some people were milling about, some were even taking pictures. My friend who was there enjoying the buffet at the hotel was not harassed, nor saw anyone who was. Having said that, the difference between these shutterbugs and the gentleman in question may be this: Maginnis took 30 pictures of the security detail of the VPOTUS, who has been kept in an "undisclosed location" for quite some time now. At best, he was stupid, at worst he was "casing" for security holes. Reaction to his photography was erring on the side of caution. Of concern, if it is true, is that there is no record of his being taken in for questioning. That is extremely worrisome, and if his allegations turn out to be true, a hue and cry needs to be raised concerning the secret nature of holding "suspects". Do I believe him. I can't say one way or the other, but I can make a call based on what I know to be true. Are Denver police overzealous at times? Yes. Does Denver keep records of peaceful protesters on file? Yes. Does the Government get bent out of shape when security details are documented. Yes. Is taking pictures of security details asking for trouble? Yes. I am for the freedom of information as much as the next person. However, when the security of the government is at stake there is a fine line which the authorities feel Maginnis crossed. Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: I was in the area   by NH4       at Sun 8 Dec 6:53pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 3     "The security of the government" doesn't justify stealing private property without providing for any possible legal recourse, Nephthys. It also doesn't justify secret detentions of American citizens (if indeed he was arrested and held for hours, as later denied by the police). It also doesn't justify calling detainees "raghead collaborators" or "dirty pinko faggots." It also doesn't justify turning the downtown of a major city into a zone of military occupation so that the Vice President can stay at an "undisclosed location" (which might as well have been disclosed to anyone working in downtown Denver) like the Adams Mark Hotel. The Bush Administration's taste for tactics like these is repelling and frightening.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  No Goddamnit   by box       at Mon 9 Dec 11:31am score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 3     "Reaction to his photography was erring on the side of caution. " 'Erring on the side of caution' is a too benign, and too inapproproproiate a moniker for such a fundamental slap in the face of freedom. How long until rounding up all the Arabs and not allowing them into Airports and Footbal games is considered "Erring on the side of caution". Like the Japanese internment camps was "Erring on the side of caution". I hope you just misspoke and you're really not standing there, abreast Cheney and Bush, fly unzipped - a warm stream of urine splattering gently on our constitution, making the ink run.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: No Goddamnit   by Nephthys       at Mon 9 Dec 7:11pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 29     Since you wish to play in the "Theatre of the Absurd", I'll play along. Where do you live? I may come over and take pictures of your house, paying special attention to your security features. I might write down the make and serial of any locks; with this information and software I might have I might make myself keys. If I suspect an alarm, I might pay extra attention, and perhaps photograph the telephone and electric connections to your home. I'll check windows and door for contact points. I could chat with your neighbors to find out your schedule and habits. Heck, I might even dig through your trash. Are you going to watch me and let me go about my business? It could be harmless. I'm just a curious girl. Or are you going to get upset and worried and call the police to have me arrested? Had you have read further in my comment you would have seen that although I feel the police erred on the side of caution, I am appalled by what allegedly happened afterwards. As to my bathroom habits, or political leanings, you would just need to read historical posts to find out that your last statement is incorrect on so many levels. Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: No Goddamnit   by TRACKYOURPOSITION       at Wed 11 Dec 12:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 33     Are you going to watch me and let me go about my business? It could be harmless. I'm just a curious girl. Or are you going to get upset and worried and call the police to have me arrested? Well, if I'm allowed in the Absurdo Photography club too, instead of watching you, I'll just video you taking all of these pictures, and send the tape to a third party, should anything happen to me or my dwelling. I'll even let you take a picture of me taping you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Question   by Conrad Bombora       at Sun 8 Dec 2:27pm score of 1     is any organization challenging the Patriot Act in the Supreme Court? Someone has to be... My personal feeling of the Patriot Act is that it was a shoot from the hip reaction to 9-11 from Congress and the Whitehouse something to let there constituents back home think there doing something good and useful. I know they all had good intentions when drafting the Act, but remember that old saying "the road to Barbra Streisand's house is paved with good intentions" "Must be nice to hope for the thing you wish to want... Sure beats doing it." Strangers with Candy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: Question   by Thalia       at Sun 8 Dec 3:55pm score of 2 helpful   in reply to comment 4     You can't challenge the law unless there is a "case in controversy"... in other words, someone has to be charged under, or arrested under, the Patriot Act in order to challenge it. Courts will not hear "hypotheticals"... they will only look at laws that are actually enforced. To the best of my knowledge there is no pending challenge of the Patriot Act. Although I would expect there to be one in the near future, when a new "warrantless search" is being first introduced as evidence. Keep your eyes on the the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) ... both of which have discussed filing a lawsuit. At the moment they have filed a Freedom of Information Act request for additional data about the USA Patriot Act and its intended enforcement. The deadline for response by the government is January 15th. Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Question   by NH4       at Sun 8 Dec 7:14pm score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 7     Thalia has provided the reason why there will never be a successful challenge of the Patriot Act. If the government has conducted a warrantless search and is concerned that the search could lead to an invalidation of the Patriot Act, why charge the "suspect" in an American court when it could simply ship the "suspect" off to Cuba for (permanent?) detention, beyond the prying eyes of the judicial system? Several courts have already determined that habeas corpus relief doesn't apply to anyone held in a foreign country, even if they are being held by U.S. authorities (i.e., anyone in Guantanamo Bay). A parallel legal system is being developed as we watch, a system with no need for due process, no need for proof of any kind (let alone "beyond a reasonable doubt"), and no need for recognition of Constitutional rights even for American citizens. What will Americans put up with in another ten years? I shudder to think...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Looks like chicken, tastes like chicken   by Violator       at Sun 8 Dec 3:42pm score of 2.5 astute     If you have an act of parliament which allows the officers of government to act like a brutal oppressive black-ops covert force (think STASI, KGB,etc) to the extent they can hold someone and question them without triel...does that make your nation a fascist regime? If it is legal for the government to kill people without trial, is it a fascist regime? If the government can treat you as a non-citizen (Padilla, Al-Q guys in Cuba), hold you without charge, hold you without trial and admits that holding you is more a political issue than a legal one, is the government a fascist dictatorship? I guess this incident is nothing surprising. I'm sure it happens everywhere around the world in 'liberal, free-thinking freedom-loving democracies'. It (holding without charge or contact) sure as shit can happen in my neck of the woods. It can be done without much recourse on the part of the person who has been held. The problem comes when the power the government has given its agents is abused. When even the most democratic of governments needs to take terror suspects aside secretly and interrogate them for 7 days, wthout access to a lawyer, so they can potentially track down the accomplices without alerting them, that's fair enough. It would suck being wrongly accused and being held without charge or trial or lawyer for 7 days. Maybe the government should be forced to spot you lost wages if they fuck up. That's all OK, nothing fascist there. Fascism comes in when people are arrested in this manner, treated like shit, all because the cops feel they can do it and there's no recourse for the 'victim', so there is no skin of their noses. Regardless of how rightfully paranoid the cops may have been, if they said what they did and acted how they did, then that is inexcusable because to my mind, its what the secret forces of fascist totalitarian regimes have done from day dot. If people are arrested and held for 'political' reasons, then the US is no better than Cuba, Iraq or anywhere else. If citizens of any other country can be arrested or even outright murdered, with no legal recourse, then the US is worse than Cuba or Iraq or anywhere else. This is worrying because when the government grants itself such overwhelming powers and continues to do so and these stories leak out, you do wonder. If a regime smells like a fascist totalitarian state, is it one, regardless of how much the government lets people whine and mouth off? You may be fooled by the freedom to speak and think freely - but thats different from being allowed to live freely, free from the threat of summary arrest, indefinite detention without trial or legal representation or free from being killed by the secret arm of the government. Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Looks like chicken, tastes like chicken   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 8 Dec 4:44pm score of 1 funny   in reply to comment 6     Ironic that you have the definition of "disingenuous" right there in your sig.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Looks like chicken, tastes like chicken   by tlacolotl       at Mon 9 Dec 8:07am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 6     What's really ironic is that the American public are more well-armed than the State, yet this shit still happens. Sometimes it feels like freedom of speech and weaponry is just this sort of carrot They dangle in front of us so it doesn't feel like a Fascist state. I always think to myself, "well, if it really hits the fan, we still have all these guns, they could never really take over..." Well, it has hit the fan, they are taking over, and being a liberal, non-violent type, I don't even own a gun. What about you guys? Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Looks like chicken, tastes like chicken   by alaffin       at Mon 9 Dec 9:52am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     What's really ironic is that the American public are more well-armed than the State What the hell are you talking about? The American Public may be more well-armed than the Canadian Public or most other Publics but to say that they are more well-armed than the state is just ridiculous. The State has access to the National Guard. They have guns, planes, helicopters, and all kinds of other stuff. Then there's the cops. Cops all have guns and bullet proof vests. They have access to pretty heavy duty body armor. Private citizens don't generally have stuff like that. The state can out-gun the public with absolutely no problem whatsoever. satire   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Looks like chicken, tastes like chicken   by TRACKYOURPOSITION       at Wed 11 Dec 1:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Well, it has hit the fan, they are taking over, and being a liberal, non-violent type, I don't even own a gun. What about you guys? Speaking as a lunatic, violent type with many guns, I have to ask, is it really so bad that violent revolution would be better? Which of course, I always answer (because I talk to myself) "of course! violent revolution rocks!" (I don't use capital letters talking to myself--that would be pretentious. I also use no punctuation other than exclamation points. When talking to myself. Like a dangerous, crazy person.) But then I have to ask if everyone else agrees with me, and the answer to that is always "no because everyone else thinks thousands or millions of deaths would be a bad thing!" Let me tell you, there's nothing worse than showing up at a violent revolution attempt with no friends. Anyway, yeah, they're totally takin' over, fight the power!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Looks like chicken, tastes like chicken   by tlacolotl       at Tue 10 Dec 4:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     'Well-armed' is not really the word I'm looking for. 'Attack-proof', maybe? If the US Army thought they had a hard time invading North Vietnam, just imagine what it would be like trying to take over Texas with military force. The occupants of any given land have the upper hand, generally, over anyone trying to invade -- which is why the US was only victorious in Afghanistan with the help of the Northern Alliance. And why the Gulf War 'ended' when the US gave up fighting once Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait. The stupid thing about my post was the notion that it would come down to a 'government vs. the people', old-fashioned shoot-out in this country. They've already colonized everyone's minds, so bullets and helicopters are irrelevant... Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Looks like chicken, tastes like chicken   by zyxwvutsr       at Tue 10 Dec 4:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     The U.S. Army never tried to invade North Vietnam.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  When will it end?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 8 Dec 5:19pm score of 2 brilliant     Has anybody given any thought to the future? When will the war on terrorism end? Never. It is an Orwellian War with out End. When will our rights removed by the American Patriot Act be returned to us? When will the Homeland Security Agency (e.g. Hitler Style Agency) no longer need to exist? Let's be clear headed about this. We have an un-elected President appointed by his father's judges, who has used the spectacular death of 3,000 people to further the political agenda of those in the world who care for only one thing, money=oil. We've got an oilman for a President and a drill head supplier as vice-president, a convicted felon collecting information on us all in the Pentagon, and another convicted felon getting no punishment for his crimes in the software world. In Latin America we would call it a coup d'etat. Fascism grows on a bed of fear Money is the answer. What was the question?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: When will it end?   by doomjesse       at Sun 8 Dec 6:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     and another convicted felon getting no punishment for his crimes in the software world Who is this a reference to? I mean I don't care for Mr Gates either but is he really a convicted felon?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: When will it end?   by zeda       at Mon 9 Dec 1:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Has anybody given any thought to the future? Well there's always the Butlerian Jihad to look forward too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Security? More like IN-security...   by tlacolotl       at Sun 8 Dec 8:17pm score of 1     Call me naive, but is there some reason taking pictures is different than simply being there to begin with? I mean, if I can see something, it's obviously not too big of a secret. Besides, if I was really 'casing security details', I certainly wouldn't need a camera to do it; all that does is draw attention to you as a suspicious character. It's obvious that this guy wasn't a threat to security, though what his motives actually were is anyone's guess -- and mine is that he was trying to get busted on it so he could call the Denver Post and expose the corruption implicit in the PATRIOT Act. I always thought it was funny how you could go to 'secure' areas near military bases and read signs that tell you not to take pictures. If something is so insecure that I, a private citizen can see it, well, then it's not really secure, now, is it? Anything the public can see should be free to be photographed as well. This just drives the point home at what a shitty job the government is doing at security; it sounds like a pretty big, obvious security detail for someone who is supposedly hiding in an undisclosed location... Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: Security? More like IN-security...   by Anywhere       at Sun 8 Dec 8:50pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 16     No. There is a huge difference between seeing something and photographing it. Even if I have a perfect memory, the only way I can convey something that I've seen to others is to describe it. With each description, some accuracy will be lost. If I have a picture, I can simply show it to others. Even better, I can reproduce it so that they can show others ad infinatum. More importantly, a picture taken by someone who is not a risk can more easily be obtained by others who are a risk than the memory of that person can be obtained. It's the reason, for example, that a bus full of cadets heading up to the DMZ in Korea is not allowed to take pictures along certain parts of the route. All of them have a security clearance and, presumably, are to be trusted. The pictures, however, could wind up anywhere. Gateway computers are pieces of shit, and their customer service is abysmal. Ask me why if you want to hear me vent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  For the record. . .   by Anywhere       at Sun 8 Dec 8:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     If what Maginnis claims is accurate (and I have my doubts, as noted upthread), I agree that whoever detained him was completely out of line. However, I just wanted to note that there is a legitimate security concern with taking pictures of something as opposed to merely seeing it. Gateway computers are pieces of shit, and their customer service is abysmal. Ask me why if you want to hear me vent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: For the record. . .   by tlacolotl       at Mon 9 Dec 8:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     What I was getting at was not so much the difference in photography vs. eyewitnessing from the photographer's point of view, but from the military's point of view, i.e. if it's so damn important you don't want people to take pictures, then don't let people see it to begin with. Carting Cheney around with a huge security detail, blocking of roads, etc., is not a very effective way of hiding him; putting him in a Santa suit, dousing him with rum, and putting a secret entrance to the hotel at the bottom of a dumpster (so he'd just sorta climb in and disappear) would work great, and he'd have some fun stories for his grandchildren. Okay, I'm just being silly now. But I've always been a proponent of the "anywhere, anytime" philosophy of taking pictures; there should be no legal restrictions on doing it. There should be legal restrictions on what you do with the pictures, however, but since there are legal things you can do with photo negatives of naval bases or whatever (like putting them in a personal scrapbook, or just burning them altogether), then the initial taking of them isn't necessarily illegal. It's like double-deck VCRs: just because there's a possibility that you can make illegal dubs of movies doesn't mean that you will, and there are legal things you can do with a double-deck VCR, so they had to make them legal. Of course, the only thing people do with double-deck VCRs is make illegal copies, and I can't imagine very many benign reasons for taking pictures of military bases or VP security details, but the logic still stands. However, to be pragmatic, I can see why they busted this guy; after all, our laws aren't based on logic or reason, are they? Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Related Incidents   by iarnuocon       at Sun 8 Dec 11:24pm score of 1.5 informative     A variety of informative contacts between the government and individuals exercising their free speech rights or otherwise going about their business can be found here. Highlights include gym member investigated for criticising the government, rights activists investigated for preferring "liberty" stamps to "flag" stamps, etc. Railfans harassed for photographing trains. Man arrested for protesting power bill. Transportation Security Administration blacklists peace activists. FBI misuse of wiretaps, surveillance "egregious" prior to Patriot act. Analyses of the USA Patriot act. Could Maginnis be lying? Of course. But that doesn't make his story less believable. Of course, he'd be in a much stronger position if he had simply called his lawyer. Then he'd at least have some corroboration for his tale of woe. But yeah, I have no trouble believing this guy's story. The government abused its powers well before 9/11, why wouldn't they feel even more justified doing so now? insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  welcome to the machine   by dangerous richard       at Sun 8 Dec 11:37pm score of 0.5 incoherent     what did you see? it's alright, we TOLD you what to see. and if you think it's gonna get worse before it gets better then you are spot on. what to do? rise up muthafuckas!!! look mommy, there's an airplane up in the sky...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  I always wonder   by LDPE       at Tue 10 Dec 6:22pm score of 1     I always wonder when discussions about similar posts come up if big brother is reading? I hope so. I like to think that our thoughts have some influence beyond the collective monitors of our circle. Normalcy is for people of limited imagination...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Latest Report   by Petronius       at Wed 11 Dec 12:05pm score of 1     According to the Rocky Mountain News , Denver Police claim they have no record of this guy getting arrested, and the Secret Service say they never busted anybody. Now I suppose they could be lying, but if Maginnis had any witnesses he would make them look stupid. I'd say the burden of proof is on Maginnis. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]