Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 3/20/2002 1:01:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2002 1:14:26 PM EDT by Maddog50]
Just what we need, a legitimate journalist videotaping law enforcement operations... [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48355,00.html[/url] Where's Eric the Hun on this one? -------------- WASHINGTON — Pentagon police on Tuesday detained and handcuffed a Fox News Channel cameraman and confiscated his videotape after he was discovered documenting a traffic stop of an Iranian man along the highway that runs outside the building. "A disturbing development tonight, possibly reflecting on the restrictive information policies of the Defense Department. A Fox News cameraman was accosted by Pentagon Police outside the building this afternoon as he was shooting pictures of an arrest being carried out by Virginia State Police on a highway that runs alongside the Pentagon but outside Pentagon property," Fox News' Brit Hume reported Tuesday evening. "Fox News has protested to Assistant Secretary of Defense Victoria Clarke." As of midday Wednesday, the Pentagon still had not returned the tape to the Fox News bureau in Washington, D.C., where cameraman Gregg Gursky is employed. In a Pentagon briefing Wednesday afternoon, spokeswoman Clarke said there had been numerous talks with Fox bureau officials and Pentagon personnel and that the tape would be returned shortly. "The tape should be back any minute now," Clarke said, during the daily press briefing Wednesday. "But I think the constructive thing to do, not to belabor this too much, but we're constantly talking with you all, the bureau chiefs, saying that unusual circumstances, unconventional things happen, how are we going to handle that and how are we going to deal with that." Clarke said notes are posted all over the reservation saying that photography is not permitted unless cameramen are accompanied by an escort. Gursky, who has security clearance and credentials to shoot at the Pentagon, said he had finished filming a police stop of a white pickup truck on a Virginia public highway from what he thought was public property near the Pentagon, when military personnel stopped him and asked for his tape. Gursky was told he was on government property without a permit. He refused to give up the tape, after which officials frisked him, handcuffed him and said he was being arrested for disobeying a police officer, the cameraman said Wednesday. After the tape had been taken away, he was let out of the handcuffs and was free to go without arrest, he said. Virginia State Police told Fox News they had stopped a man driving a pickup truck on Route 110, which runs near the Pentagon and is Virginia state property. Such six-axle trucks are now restricted on that road. The man was of Iranian descent and did not speak clear English, said the police official. The man's identification cleared with state and federal agencies and the truck swept for explosives by dogs before police let him go without incident. Experts told Fox News Wednesday that based on Gursky’s recollection of events, it might appear the Pentagon officials went overboard. They were surprised the tape had yet to be returned. "Holding that tape for the last 24 hours is just unacceptable," said Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio and Television Broadcasters News Association. "If there is a security reason, they certainly didn’t give it, did they?" (continued)
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:07:15 PM EDT
Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, said on the face of it, there does not appear to be a compelling reason to keep the tape. "One would think they would have given a better basis for stopping him. It doesn’t seem to be a national security matter, it doesn’t seem as though it was on the basis of what Gregg saw," he said. Clarke said the incident was typical of the irregular circumstances the country has been thrust into since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11. "Prior to Sept. 11, I don’t think it occurred to us that a plane could fly into your building," she said. "We need to figure out what the policies need to be when news breaks out right in front of someone."
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:07:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2002 1:09:46 PM EDT by Happyshooter]
No photographing on base without premission of the base commander. National Security Act (of 54?) The supremes and various circuits have upheld the base commander's total control of his base over and over. [edited to respond to Napolitano] Napolitano has whored out to the media 100%. He could find the caselaw and the staute with 30 minutes work on lexis. He was not speaking as some judge god, but as a media talking head.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:14:16 PM EDT
This story has to be a plant. Fox News is the public relations division of the Pentagon and State Department. Maybe it was a coordinated publicity procedure to divert criticism of Fox's news coverage?
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:16:02 PM EDT
"You're lying... I can always tell when people are lying."
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:24:32 PM EDT
Okay, the photographer was on base w/o a permit. He was filming in a restricted area w/o an escort. Signs are posted all over saying this is a no no. He refused to turn over the tape when requested to do so by LEO. I am not a cop, but does the person being filmed/detained not also have a right to privacy? He may, after all is said and done, be not guilty.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:49:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By operatorerror: Okay, the photographer was on base w/o a permit. He was filming in a restricted area w/o an escort. Signs are posted all over saying this is a no no. He refused to turn over the tape when requested to do so by LEO. I am not a cop, but does the person being filmed/detained not also have a right to privacy? He may, after all is said and done, be not guilty.
View Quote
I beg to differ, this was the media and since the truck driver was stopped, he was obviously guilty.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 3:00:15 PM EDT
Okay, admittedly the driver was "guilty" of some infraction. But the journalist was in blatant violation of posted restrictions and then refuses to turn the tape over. Probably failed the attitude test in a major way, and got cuffed for his trouble. Being part of the media in no way exempts you from following the rules. Especially on a government installation.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 3:34:29 PM EDT
Hey... YO! Either you're WITH us.... or you're AGAINST us! [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/TylerDurden%2Fnwoblack13%5Fsmall%2Egif[/img]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:00:44 PM EDT
"Gursky, who has security clearance and credentials to shoot at the Pentagon, said he had finished filming a police stop of a white pickup truck on a Virginia public highway from what he thought was public property near the Pentagon, when military personnel stopped him and asked for his tape." So, either the guy was on Pentagon property, or the Penatagon cops f'ed up. I bet the latter. The reporter "if" he goofed, did it by a few feet while filming an event taking place on State / public property. Either way, the Pentagon cops were wrong on this one.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:13:44 PM EDT
Sorry, but this is a very badly worded Poll, IMHO. I went with the 'Yes, it is necessary for the security of a free state', but only because the two negative choices were lame. If anyone has a right to be at a place that he can actually witness something, then he should be able to tape the scene, as well. If anyone has no right to be at a place, then whatever he taped from where he had no right to be should be confiscated. How did the MPs know what he had taken photos of, unescorted, when they found him in a prohibited area? They did the correct thing - obtain the tape, see what was on it. If a crime has been committed at the location at which the taping is being done, then the authorities have every right to obtain the tape as evidence related to the crime. Ask Mr. Zapruder for details on that.... You cannot shield evidence of a crime by simply stating that 'I'm with the News, and I can do anything I want.' The Pentagon's spokesman said it like it is. These are rough times and we need to figure out how we're going to handle a lot of things. The film's been returned. End of story. Eric The(YouGuysCanStopSquealingNow!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:14:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: If anyone has a right to be at a place that he can actually witness something, then he should be able to tape the scene, as well. Eric The(YouGuysCanStopSquealingNow!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Is this the same Hun who said that no one has the right to video security checkpoints at airports.[;)]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 6:46:06 PM EDT
Post from Aggie1 -
Is this the same Hun who said that no one has the right to video security checkpoints at airports.
View Quote
Yes, indeed it is.[:D] A law puts the unauthorized filming at airport security checkpoints off limits. A law puts the unauthorized filming at or on military facilities off limits. The laws are clear. Read what I said carefully. You have no right to be on a base. You have no right to be at an airport. Both are private facilities, subject to any and all restrictions that the owners desire. Like your homes. If I am in the street, then I am free to film anything I want. If a crime's been committed and I have caught it on film, the film is now evidence in a criminal proceeding and may be taken and used for all purposes of that proceeding. When the trial, if any, is over, the tape will be returned. Ask the heirs of Mr. Zapruder. Eric The(Consistency-TheHobgoblinOfSmallMinds)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 7:47:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: The laws are clear. If I am in the street, then a crime's been committed. Eric The(Consistency-TheHobgoblinOfSmallMinds)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
[:D]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 9:39:54 PM EDT
Eric You're wrong on this one and the airport example. The only antidote for abuses is disclosure and in this visually oriented society, the best disclosure is often video. The Fox camera man did have the right to be where he was, regardless of whether he was on the Pentagon or the public sidewalk. He thought he was off Pentagon property. Note that he was filming a scene on a public street. While you and the government can argue that there may be some reasonable basis for restricting filming of activities on a base, it is very hard to see the basis for any reasonable restriction for filming things off base on a public street. The person stopped does not have a legally enforceable expectation of privacy in what he does in public. Eric, your position seems to be that maybe the camera man was still on Pentagon property when he filmed something on a public street and that, who cares, he got the tape back. What do you think would have happened if it had been Joe Public with a Sony? The government, any government, tends to be obsessively secret. Things that aren't really national security get tagged that way because bureaucrats don't like anyone questioning them. Let's go back to your example of the airport security. Let's say the screeners really are targeting pretty women for the "grope and grab" dangerous object search. Let's say they really are targeting elderly women to get their jollies by intimidating people who are less capable of fighting back. And let's say they really are looking the other way while Mohammad Atta look a likes with fuses dangling from their shoes stroll through. Every one of those accusations has been made. There is a real tendency for the public and esp. the government to say that the criticisms are overblown and false. A tape can provide strong evidence one way or the other. A lot of your position seems to be just that someone made a rule or regulation or law that made it illegal and since there is no "right" to be there, the government can do whatever it pleases. Do you see a limit on what the government can restrict in areas where there is not a "right" to be? When you get right down to it, under your analysis, the only place you have a "right" to be is your own house, and the government can restrict your activities anywhere else because you don't have a "right" to be there. There is no "right" to be on a public street just as there is no "right" to drive a car. There is a trade-off to be made between freedom and security. Yes, we need OPSEC. Yes, we don't want unnecessary details to get back to our enemies. However, governments always tend to try to conceal everything possible. They conceal not only the things necessary to preserve our security, but they also try to conceal the embarrassing, the mis-guided, the power-hungry things the bureaucrats do to preserve their own personal jobs and power. Those restrictions, whether necessary for our protection or for the protection of someone's bureaucratic fief, are always put forth under the absolute noblest of motives. After all, these restrictions are for our own good, and the safety of our children.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:38:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2002 4:40:10 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Post from frances -
The only antidote for abuses is disclosure and in this visually oriented society, the best disclosure is often video.
View Quote
You are so right, I will be at your house soon to tape you and your family to see if [u]any[/u] abuses can be disclosed. What's that you say? I have no right to tape you and your family without permission? That's right!
The Fox camera man did have the right to be where he was, regardless of whether he was on the Pentagon or the public sidewalk.
View Quote
Nope. It's against the law to film [b]on[/b] a military base, etc., without permission, which he did [b]not[/b] have.
He [u]thought[/u] he was off Pentagon property.
View Quote
So what? He was mistaken! And ignorance is still no defense, as far as I am aware.
Note that he was filming a scene on a public street.
View Quote
I don't care if he was filming his family, if he's on military soil....
While you and the government can argue that there may be some reasonable basis for restricting filming of activities on a base...
View Quote
Wait a minute, [b]you[/b] don't believe that an argument can be made that there is a reasonable basis for restricting filming of activities at a base? Just me and the government can argue for that...?
...it is very hard to see the basis for any reasonable restriction for filming things off base on a public street.
View Quote
If the cameraman was 'off base' then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
The person stopped does not have a legally enforceable expectation of privacy in what he does in public.
View Quote
Well, actually, he does. Have you ever wondered why they sometimes 'blur' the faces of folks on [b]'Cops'[/b], and sometimes they don't? If it's determined that no crime's been committed, and the person filmed objects, they will have to 'blur' his/her face, unless there is another basis for airing the footage, such as public person, etc.
Eric, your position seems to be that maybe the camera man was still on Pentagon property when he filmed something on a public street and that, who cares, he got the tape back.
View Quote
Yes, that is my position and exactly how the story happened. Gee, what a deal.
What do you think would have happened if it had been Joe Public with a Sony?
View Quote
Neither you nor I would get off so lightly, I would imagine. - continued -
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:39:21 AM EDT
Let's go back to your example of the airport security.
View Quote
Sorry, Frances, but we've already had this argument and for the time being, you lost. The Airport Authority, the Airlines, the FAA, and just about everyone in positions to decide this issue has come down in favor of the ban. Squeal, holler, scream, but you will have your camera, videocam, whatever, taken away from you as you are led from the area. Is it reasonable? Is it right? Yes, so long as those who are in positions have determined that such restrictions are reasonable, and they have, and so long as they remain unchallenged in Court, which has not yet occurred to my knowledge, then it is the law. And insofar as such ban on filming keeps any potential 'groping' etc., from being litigated in Court, then how in the world did we ever have such lawsuits [u]before[/u] videocameras became widely available? Answer: testimony of eyewitnesses!
When you get right down to it, under your analysis, the only place you have a "right" to be is your own house, and the government can restrict your activities anywhere else because you don't have a "right" to be there.
View Quote
[b]That's pure nonsense.[/b] Can you give us one example that does not involve issues of national security, airports, military bases, prisons, and courthouses?
There is a trade-off to be made between freedom and security. Yes, we need OPSEC. Yes, we don't want unnecessary details to get back to our enemies.
View Quote
Thank you, my point has been made. Eric The(ThatWasEasyEnough)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:48:13 AM EDT
ETH--Consider rephrasing military base to military installation, as surely someone will attempt to nit pick on the point. I get what you are saying though, and happen to agree.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 4:55:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By operatorerror: Okay, the photographer was on base w/o a permit. He was filming in a restricted area w/o an escort. Signs are posted all over saying this is a no no. He refused to turn over the tape when requested to do so by LEO. .
View Quote
IF THIS IS TRUE, this jerknalist is lucky he didn't get shot by MP's. In these days and times, when you are in a military base w/o permission, its pretty much a free fire zone, IMO. For all the MP's would have known, that camera could have been 100 lbs of semtex. I'd commend the LEO's and the MP's for their restraint. EXCEPT that they MAY have endangered the Pentagon by showing that restraint.
originally by Hun-baby: If anyone has no right to be at a place, then whatever he taped from where he had no right to be should be confiscated. How did the MPs know what he had taken photos of, unescorted, when they found him in a prohibited area?
View Quote
ETH my lawyer buddy can explain this better than I, but this is kinda like "fruit of the poisonous tree" for civilians. If people are allowed to profit from the commission of illegal acts, then we have no laws anymore. People would just disobey the law, KNOWING they'll eventually get what they want, along with their "15 minutes of fame." While EVERYTHING has its limits, I'm willing to cut the military A LITTLE slack when it comes to the so-called "freedom of information" because people may DIE if the wrong information about military secrets gets out. ALOT OF PEOPLE may die. I'm ALL FOR free speech, but not if its gonna get our military people killed. They took the tape, reviewed it, and then sent it back. No harm, no foul. Except next time, they should SHOOT the intruder.[;D] j/k, sort of. [50]
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 6:45:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Sorry, but this is a very badly worded Poll
View Quote
It was worded to get precisely the result I was looking for. I didn't ask if FOX was right on this one.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 7:14:14 AM EDT
Post from Maddog50 -
It was worded to get precisely the result I was looking for.
View Quote
Sorry, I didn't say that correctly. It is a badly worded poll in the sense that it didn't cover my position in the matter. I voted for 'yes, etc.', but I really meant 'yes, with exceptions' which is how I answered in my posts. Sorry for any confusion. Eric The(OnMyPartEven)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 7:22:03 AM EDT
[b]Colonel Nathan Jessep on the Stand written by Aaron Sorkin Jessep: [/b]You want answers? [b]Kaffee (Tom Cruise)[/b]: I think I'm entitled to them. [b]Jessep:[/b] You want answers? [b]Kaffee:[/b] I want the truth! [b]Jessep:[/b] You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for [the photographer] and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that [taking that video tape], while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to! [b]Kaffee:[/b] Did you order the [taking of that video tape]? [b]Jessep: [/b](quietly) I did the job you sent me to do. [b]Kaffee:[/b] Did you order the [taking of that video tape]? [b]Jessep:[/b] You're goddamn right I did!! ________________ While Jessup was demonized by the movie, the reality is there is alot of truth in what he said.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 7:43:24 AM EDT
One should be wary of deeds done in darkness or secret especially when the doers tell you it is for your own good that you not know the details. It's amazing how many people think it is raining when they are actually being pissed on. It's been proven time and time after time, power corrupts men, and when they are allowed to operate in secret (which is basically free from having to answer to anyone for their actions) you can bet they will take advantage of it. If we let the terrorists scare us into letting these politicians restrict our freedoms more than what is reasonable then they win after all.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 8:10:05 AM EDT
not everything in the shadows is evil, but evil thrives in darkness.
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 8:36:23 AM EDT
Post from ARTIE -
One should be wary of deeds done in darkness or secret especially when the doers tell you it is for your own good that you not know the details.
View Quote
It's very well lit around airport security checkpoints! All the searching, etc., goes on in front of other passenegrs and waiting guests. I haven't heard reports of people being taken off into dark rooms to be bludgeoned, but if they are, that will become front page news the very day it happens! Ain't it great living in a free country! A free country that knows the difference between reasonable and unreasonable restraints on freedom!
It's amazing how many people think it is raining when they are actually being pissed on.
View Quote
If you get pissed on, let us know. You won't need any videotape, either. If it happens to enough people, it will be believed. Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/21/2002 10:11:48 PM EDT
Is it reasonable? Is it right? Yes, so long as those who are in positions have determined that such restrictions are reasonable, and they have, and so long as they remain unchallenged in Court, which has not yet occurred to my knowledge, then it is the law.
View Quote
Eric: There is nothing more to be said. Since you apparently believe that whatever restrictions "those who are in positions have determined" are [i] ipso facto[-i] reasonable and right, there is no reason to continue to discuss the point. As we all know, "those who are in positions" always have the best interests of the country at heart and never make mistakes. And, of course, if its the law, it must be right and reasonable. Just out of curiosity, do you think that the ban on new "semi-automatic assault weapons" in the 1994 Crime Bill was right and reasonable? After all, "those who are in positions have determined that such restrictions are reasonable, and they have, and so long as they remain unchallenged in Court, which has not yet occurred to my knowledge, then it is the law." I will add two small points. First, if you are going to invoke OPSEC to prevent the filming an activity like airport security that literally thousands of people are seeing every day, you are grasping at straws. Do you think that the terrorists might consider having someone take a trial flight, just the way that they did prior to 9-11? He or she could provide all the information necessary. Second, you have confused the law. The reason faces of innocents in shows like COPS are fuzzed out is a doctrine called "false light." You can't show people in situations that tend to make the viewer think are something they are not, for example, that they are crooks. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in what you do in public. That's why producers of those sleazy videos of topless co-eds at Marti Gras or Spring Break are not running around waving release forms at drunken college girls.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 4:54:26 AM EDT
Post from Frances -
Just out of curiosity, do you think that the ban on new "semi-automatic assault weapons" in the 1994 Crime Bill was right and reasonable? After all, "those who are in positions have determined that such restrictions are reasonable, and they have, and so long as they remain unchallenged in Court, which has not yet occurred to my knowledge, then it is the law."
View Quote
Now, that's a crock! Since when is going onto private property and filming whatever you desire, the same as a Constitutionally protected right? It's not, and you know it. By engaging in such BS logic, you may succeed in bringing the RKBA down to a much lower level, but you will never succeed in lifting the 'right to film at an airport security checkpoint' to the level of a Constitutionally protected right. Just how far are you willing to go to protect your right to film at airport security checkpoints? or on military installations? or at Courthouses? And if evil deeds are what you say all of this is designed to prevent, then surely you must believe in your inherent right to film inside the nation's maximum security prisons? Right? I mean, think of all the 'official' evildoing that goes on (or [u]must[/u] go on) in such institutions that the government is covering up and keeping from the public. Have you filed a lawsuit anywhere to protest this curtailment of individual liberty? No? I thought not. And just how many times have you desired to film an airport security checkpoint [u]prior[/u] to Sept 11?
Do you think that the terrorists might consider having someone take a trial flight, just the way that they did prior to 9-11? He or she could provide all the information necessary.
View Quote
I'm certain we know that they did take 'test' flights, as well. If you'll go back and check out the last thread we had on airport filming, you will find several links which I provided, showing that videos of intended targets were found by the Singapore Police after a raid on a terrorist hideout. These videos showed a great deal of concern with the security arrangements at the US Embassy in Singapore. There were also videos found in Afghanistan by our troops that showed videotaping of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and other suggested targets. TERRORISTS USE VIDEOPTAPES FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY FEEL IS NECESSARY! PERIOD! While we cannot conceivably keep them from filming the US Capitol, or other public landmarks, we are able to keep them from filming around airport security checkpoints and governmental installations. But go ahead and film at any airport or military installation that you desire.[:D] - continued -
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 4:55:16 AM EDT
Second, you have confused the law. The reason faces of innocents in shows like COPS are fuzzed out is a doctrine called "false light." You can't show people in situations that tend to make the viewer think are something they are not, for example, that they are crooks.
View Quote
Hmmm, let's see what the Hun, Esq., said on this subject:
Have you ever wondered why they sometimes 'blur' the faces of folks on 'Cops', and sometimes they don't? If it's determined that no crime's been committed, and the person filmed objects, they will have to 'blur' his/her face, unless there is another basis for airing the footage, such as public person, etc.
View Quote
Sounds like the Hun's definition for the slow and ungifted of the doctrine of 'false light.'
You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in what you do in public. That's why producers of those sleazy videos of topless co-eds at Marti Gras or Spring Break are not running around waving release forms at drunken college girls.
View Quote
Precisely! Because both the co-eds [u]and[/u] the film makers are located in areas where they have [u]every[/u] [u]right[/u] to be! Try taking a video tape of those same co-eds in a (1) public women's restroom, or in a (2) private dressing room at a store, and you will soon meet 'Bubba' your new boyfriend and soon-to-be-fluid-sharing buddy at Orleans Parish Prison! But thanks for helping make my point! Eric The(SensibleAndReasonable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 4:59:37 AM EDT
Post from Frances -
That's why producers of those sleazy videos of topless co-eds at Marti Gras or Spring Break are not running around waving release forms at drunken college girls.
View Quote
Those videos are [b]'sleazy'[/b]? Hmmm, I guess 'sleaze' is in the eye of the beholder![:D] Eric The(OK,'Sleazy')Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 5:19:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: IF THIS IS TRUE, this jerknalist is lucky he didn't get shot by MP's. In these days and times, when you are in a military base w/o permission, its pretty much a free fire zone, IMO. For all the MP's would have known, that camera could have been 100 lbs of semtex.
View Quote
I know of at least one news crew that ran a Marine security checkpoint in an effort to "Test" security. Given the rules of engagement in place at that time, they were extremely lucky they weren't shot. In an unrelated incident, a Marine sentry did fire at a vehicle that refused to stop while exiting the back gate at Camp Lejeune, NC. So yes, these guys Will pull the trigger.
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 6:32:42 AM EDT
Has anyone confirmed exactly where the cameraman was standing and exactly where the boundaries of the Pentagon's grounds lie?
Link Posted: 3/22/2002 7:56:53 AM EDT
Post from renamed -
Has anyone confirmed exactly where the cameraman was standing and exactly where the boundaries of the Pentagon's grounds lie?
View Quote
No one to my knowledge, but the fellow did say he 'thought' that he wasn't on the grounds of the installation. That sounds like he knew he was mistaken! I'm certain that knowing the press as we do, if he had not been on military installation grounds, we would have already viewed constant recreations of the scene by now! Ad nauseam. With a lot of gnashing of chemically-whitened teeth, and much wringing of soft, never-seen-an-honest-days-work-in-their-lives hands, by the liberal media. FoxNews has dropped it, so that tells me a lot. Eric The(TskTskTsk)Hun[>]:)]
Top Top