Old 12-09-2011, 04:31 PM   #1
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default Are We Terrorists?

What if we are accused of being a terrorist for taking pictures if this were to god forbid pass? Cant believe what I am reading here.
http://blog.nj.com/dr_aref_assaf/201...stitution.html
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 04:40 PM   #2
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

It's really sad. And the likelihood is, if railfans don't do some things differently and the law is passed, it's likely to happen to one of us. However, I have two reasons to hope that this won't happen: POTUS and SCOTUS. First, it does seem Obama plans to veto it, though, based on what Jon Stewart said, for the wrong reasons. Secondly, under any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, this is unconstitutional. As a result, one would hope that the Supreme Court will knock it down in the event that it passes and is subsequently challenged.
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 04:43 PM   #3
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,092
Default

It is probably an overreaction to assume that folks taking pictures of trains would be charged as terrorists. Going from being hassled by the Amtrak Cops to being held at Gitmo is a pretty big step and would involve a lot more evidence than just your presence next to some railroad station and the possession of a camera.

I would refrain from reading "blogs". Many of them would be better classified as "rants"....and some of the "ranters" probably have too much time on their hands.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 04:45 PM   #4
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
It is probably an overreaction to assume that folks taking pictures of trains would be charged as terrorists. Going from being hassled by the Amtrak Cops to being held at Gitmo is a pretty big step and would involve a lot more evidence than just your presence next to some railroad station and the possession of a camera.

I would refrain from reading "blogs". Many of them would be better classified as "rants"....and some of the "ranters" probably have too much time on their hands.
I would like to believe you're correct. However, the breadth of what would classify someone as a terrorist, anyone could be in trouble.
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 06:20 PM   #5
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Exclamation Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
It is probably an overreaction to assume that folks taking pictures of trains would be charged as terrorists. Going from being hassled by the Amtrak Cops to being held at Gitmo is a pretty big step and would involve a lot more evidence than just your presence next to some railroad station and the possession of a camera.

I would refrain from reading "blogs". Many of them would be better classified as "rants"....and some of the "ranters" probably have too much time on their hands.
Respectfully - You completely missed the point and that is the whole problem with people today.

The Senate passed a bill that will allow the indefinite dentition of citizens labeled as terrorists.

Assuming you didn't sleep through high school government class - you should be outraged and scared shitless.

I am.

It really shows how far things have gone in the wrong direction, when a bunch of extremely educated and supposedly dedicated governmental representatives who swore a solemn oath to defend the Constitution could allow such a proposal to see the light of day, let alone pass it.

Also, just what is the definition of a terrorist?

The Tea Party has been labeled terrorists and have railfans.

This is not some idle "rant," it is a wake up call to all of those who have been coasting through life for the last 10 years since 9/11 thinking that everything is alright and the government is going to take care of you.

Wake up!

Those people standing in the parks and in the streets are starting to make people nervous and they are not going to sit around and let someone else take their power and their living away.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 06:49 PM   #6
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,092
Default

Upon further review....meaning I actually read the applicable paragraphs of the National Defense Authorization Act....I see nothing that scares me.

Now, if I were to travel to one of the parts of the world in which the United States Military is engaged in hostilities, AND I was a member of one of the cited organizations...or just some jerk who thought it would be cool to threaten US Military Personnel....then yeah, I'd be a little concerned.

But after reading the actual language in the bill, I stand by my original statement. The dude who thinks the commute home tonight is a local NASCAR event, or the gal who is more concerned with reading her text messages than with safely operating her vehicle are much more worrisome to me than the congressional process that funds the US Military each year.

__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 06:56 PM   #7
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

I am sitting on neutral on this. Yes it's unconstitutional. But the military is by no means stupid. They know that taking pictures of trains, even if trespassing is not a terrorist activity. And even if they did they will not just run up and grab you and take you to the CIA or whatever. If they looked into your background they would see that we have no ties to the terrorists and what not.

Back to why I'm neutral. I would vote no because yes, it is unconstitutional, but, we also do unfortunately live in a world with bad people. And yes, there are some of those bad people in the U.S. And since we killed Osama Bin Laden, these people have sworn his vengeance. And if they were able to attack us while the military had to look at their backgrounds, send them to trial, and then into custody, we would feel pretty stupid.

Another point, if we do not trespass and obey all the safety rules and regulations of the railroads, this is not something that we have to worry about.

Rant over.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 07:00 PM   #8
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
The dude who thinks the commute home tonight is a local NASCAR event, or the gal who is more concerned with reading her text messages than with safely operating her vehicle are much more worrisome to me than the congressional process that funds the US Military each year.
Agreed. I'm only concerned about the unconstitutional part of it, not the military coming to the East Broad Top and taking me because I was standing on railroad property. (You're allowed to there)
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 07:25 PM   #9
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

I worry greatly. These kinds of laws are how freedom is lost and dictators come to power. Fortunately for us, it's a slow change we can stop. I do agree we need tools to combat terrorism; but we have to be very careful to assure these tools are used correctly. Being able to detain someone forever without a trial is far to dangerous for me to be comfortable with.

The House version doesn't include this text, so the bills have to go to a reconciliation committee.

We need to put pressure on the House or Reps to hold firm.

It's interesting to note how this came out of the Democratic Senate. How times have changed.
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 07:34 PM   #10
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
Upon further review....meaning I actually read the applicable paragraphs of the National Defense Authorization Act....I see nothing that scares me.

This is what you need to be afraid of:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

*****************************


Issues:

(1) You can be held indefinitely with out trial until the end of the war - which at his point is going to be forever.

(2) You can be taken into custody in the United States by the military and held indefinitely with out trial.


Argument:

Sure at this monument it supposedly requires that you be a member of a terrorist group, but since there is no way to prove your innocence, and there is no check or balance on the government's power such as the Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is a very dangerous precedent.

What if someone somewhere decides that you are a problem and they need to have you detained.

What is your recourse?




Further, as Sub. (B) states, nothing in this section shall "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

Well, there is nothing that says that they cannot do this - so as it is written, they can arrest people in the US, and they will.

Do you see the problem yet?

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 12-09-2011 at 07:40 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 07:39 PM   #11
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post

You can be held indefinitely with out trial until the end of the war - which at his point is going to be forever.

Sure at this monument it supposedly requires that you be a member of a terrorist group, but since there is no way to prove your innocence, and there is no check or balance on the government's power such as the Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is a very dangerous precedent.

Further, as Sub. (B) states, nothing in this section shall "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

Well, there is nothing that says that they cannot do this - so as it is written, they can and they will.

Do you see the problem yet?
Are you scared that they are going to take you into custody? You haven't done anything to merit that. This doesn't mean that they're going to take every citizen into custody.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 07:42 PM   #12
Mr. Pick
Senior Member
 
Mr. Pick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 662
Default

----------------------------------------

Last edited by Mr. Pick; 12-10-2011 at 12:37 AM.
Mr. Pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 07:56 PM   #13
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
The dude who thinks the commute home tonight is a local NASCAR event, or the gal who is more concerned with reading her text messages than with safely operating her vehicle are much more worrisome to me than the congressional process that funds the US Military each year.
Kevin, putting aside the constitutional rights dimension, the "congressional process" is benign? Do you feel that the funding of the military is done on a rational basis? Do you think it is responsive solely to defensive and offensive needs? Do you think there is no influence of bureaucracies, or of major industry constituents? I'm not talking just about "waste", I am talking about determining major dollar spending. (And, let's not forget, the war(s) is off-budget.) Your sentence seems to be a whopper of a statement, did you really mean it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSX1702 View Post
Are you scared that they are going to take you into custody? You haven't done anything to merit that. This doesn't mean that they're going to take every citizen into custody.
Mistakes happen, well intentioned govt folk do the wrong thing and someone ends up in jail, perhaps for some time. Derek, in fact they do take people into custody that don't merit that. Shit happens, and justifications are made after the fact.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:01 PM   #14
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,092
Default

Folks,

Would someone kindly cite the text from the actual bill that's giving everyone so much heartburn?

Don't read the blog. Read the sections of the bill that are cited...1031 and 1032. Pay special attention to "Covered Persons" under 1031 as well as "Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens" under 1032.

There is nothing in there about US Military Personnel detaining US Citizens on the streets of the United States.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:03 PM   #15
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post

Mistakes happen, well intentioned govt folk do the wrong thing and someone ends up in jail, perhaps for some time. Derek, in fact they do take people into custody that don't merit that. Shit happens, and justifications are made after the fact.
Yes but terrorism is not who dinged someone else's car or not, it's even not on the same page as civilian murder, in my opinion. It would be very hard to misjudge a railfan and call them a terrorist simply because they are taking pictures and putting them on a website, which they will see if and when they look into you. If this passes, the military is not going to be walking the street picking out people left and right. This comes with investigations that lead to this person maybe being a terrorist. And if taking these people off the streets means a safer country for us, I say by all means go ahead.

Also, by the way, as I've said before I do understand that this is unconstitutional, which is why I'm neutral.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:22 PM   #16
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Kevin, putting aside the constitutional rights dimension, the "congressional process" is benign? Do you feel that the funding of the military is done on a rational basis? Do you think it is responsive solely to defensive and offensive needs? Do you think there is no influence of bureaucracies, or of major industry constituents? I'm not talking just about "waste", I am talking about determining major dollar spending. (And, let's not forget, the war(s) is off-budget.) Your sentence seems to be a whopper of a statement, did you really mean it?

LOL! Of course I really mean it. I stated that I was far more concerned about the clowns on the roads tonight than I am about language in the Defense Authorization Act that allows the military to deal with certain types of "enemy combatants". That's the God's-honest truth. I worry about immediate threats to me, my family and friends. World politics, US Politics and world hunger are pretty far down the list of things I lose sleep over. I don't dispute that the US Government has become disfunctional in many ways. I just don't let it bother me too much. It is worry about things we cannot control that takes years off our lives.

Once again, I think that if folks completely read Sections 1031 and 1032....not just the text that El Roco quoted.....any reasonable person would move on to the next issue. I'm not one of the "Covered Persons" in 1031 and 1032 says the provisions don't extend to me anyway.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:37 PM   #17
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

This really has zero chance of passing in the house, especially with the rabid teabaggers in there now, and I think Obama would veto it anyway.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:47 PM   #18
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,777
Default

Anyone who is not scared by this is at the very least missing the bigger picture. Just because you think that this doesnt apply to you means nothing, if you have had any experience with the people that are supposed to uphold our laws lately, you should comprehend how little they of the actual laws they actually understand and how quick they are to blow situations completely out of proportion. This is just the first step down a slipperly slope to a police state, if they find that they can get away with destroying one part of the the constitution, how much longer will it take for them to get rid of the rest of our rights?
I've read 1032, and all it says is that military detention is not REQUIRED, its still fully possible and up the governments discretion. The detention until end of hostilies provision is also very scary, since it seems at this time we have entered what is essentially perpetual war where there is no defined enemy.

How to you define a person as a potential terrorist anyways? With such broad wording it sounds like a way to get rid of opposition, the first step for any police state. Elimination of any of the essential rights given to us by the constitution should be met with alarm. Do you really want to give the government the power to decide whats in your best interest?
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:50 PM   #19
jnohallman
Senior Member
 
jnohallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
There is nothing in there about US Military Personnel detaining US Citizens on the streets of the United States.
In fact, there is a long-standing tradition (if not law) in the United States that the United States' Armed Forces are not deployed domestically as policemen. Even the use of the armed forces in emergency situations (putting up sandbags to prevent flooding, helping with search and rescue after Katrina, etc.) generally requires that the governor of a state issues a request to call out the National Guard. No one from the US Military is going to arrest you here in the US.

Having said that, I do think it is high time that all politicians be required to read the Constitution. Of course, it would also be helpful if members of Congress would actually read the bills they are voting on. It might prevent some of this stupidity. I am tremendously concerned that the reaction to the attacks on 9/11 has been to limit freedoms in the name of security. If there is never another terrorist attack on the United States, Al Qaeda has won a victory - they have succeded in making us change how we live, and what we believe about liberty, by their action. The way to win the war with Al Qaeda is to carry on with life as usual - wiser, to be sure, and with reasonable precautions, but holding dear to the basic principals of freedom and liberty that America was founded on. If it had been up to me, the World Trade Center towers would have been rebuilt on the spot (re-engineered, of course, but looking essentially the same) to give the finger to the bad guys.

Rant over.

Jon
__________________
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

Click here to see my photos on RP.net!

Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, click here. Don't even think about it. I'm warning you!
jnohallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:51 PM   #20
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos1 View Post
Anyone who is not scared by this is at the very least missing the bigger picture. Just because you think that this doesnt apply to you means nothing, if you have had any experience with the people that are supposed to uphold our laws lately, you should comprehend how little they of the actual laws they actually understand and how quick they are to blow situations completely out of proportion. This is just the first step down a slipperly slope to a police state, if they find that they can get away with destroying one part of the the constitution, how much longer will it take for them to get rid of the rest of our rights?
I've read 1032, and all it says is that military detention is not REQUIRED, its still fully possible and up the governments discretion. The detention until end of hostilies provision is also very scary, since it seems at this time we have entered what is essentially perpetual war where there is no defined enemy.

How to you define a person as a potential terrorist anyways? With such broad wording it sounds like a way to get rid of opposition, the first step for any police state. Elimination of any of the essential rights given to us by the constitution should be met with alarm. Do you really want to give the government the power to decide whats in your best interest?
You guys are still talking like the army is going to be going door to door, and just taking people in based on the fact that they got a speeding ticket in 1999. I'm sorry, there is going to be worrisome evidence before they come and take someone into custody. Would you prefer that we wait and have to go through steps of the legal system while terrorists run around on the loose?
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:52 PM   #21
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnohallman View Post
If there is never another terrorist attack on the United States, Al Qaeda has won a victory.

Jon
Excuse me?
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 08:59 PM   #22
jnohallman
Senior Member
 
jnohallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,527
Default

Read the rest of what I said. My point is they succeeded in changing how we live.

Jon
__________________
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

Click here to see my photos on RP.net!

Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, click here. Don't even think about it. I'm warning you!
jnohallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 09:03 PM   #23
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnohallman View Post
Read the rest of what I said. My point is they succeeded in changing how we live.

Jon
I do agree with that. But I don't agree that if they never attack again they've won. The point is, is that we do need a certain level of security maintained. I would rather be scared and safe, then not scared and losing lives.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 09:07 PM   #24
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnohallman View Post
In fact, there is a long-standing tradition (if not law) in the United States that the United States' Armed Forces are not deployed domestically as policemen.
It's not a tradition, it's LAW. Look up the Posse Comitatus law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

This law would obviously clearly conflict with a law on the books since just after the civil war
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2011, 09:14 PM   #25
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSX1702 View Post
You guys are still talking like the army is going to be going door to door, and just taking people in based on the fact that they got a speeding ticket in 1999. I'm sorry, there is going to be worrisome evidence before they come and take someone into custody. Would you prefer that we wait and have to go through steps of the legal system while terrorists run around on the loose?
As John stated above, the US army is not supposed to be involved in domestic operations. We have the FBI and local authorities to handle that. I would rather have "terrorists" on the loose rather than people locked up without being charged with any crime.
As I said this is just the first step, towards a police state, any erosion of civil liberty for "security" is a bad thing.

This is overquoted but still so true

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Thomas Jefferson
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.