Baloney.

What details, [i]relative to airline security[/i], are you going to glean from watching a single videotape of a location over and over?  That everyday at 3:27pm security officer Fred goes for a jelly donut?  That before he opens luggage, he picks his nose (or was that some sort of signal to the rest of security?)  To make sure details like these are relevant, and not mere one time happenings or irrelevant occurances, you'd need to tape that same location on several occasions for comparison.  By doing this you'd raise suspicions as much as if you sent operatives to do the viewing with cell phones or pen and paper instead of the cameras. The repeated presence of the cameras would be more of a warning to security and serve as a reminder to alter proceedures, personnel, locations, etc. on an unscheduled basis without warning.  Yes you can view a tape over and over again for details, but the relevant details are what matters, and the trained operator will know what details to look for and what are irrelevant to their goal of circumventing security.

Post from goet -

I don't either, but apparently criminals, terrorists, and the feds think it does!

And they're all experts at it![:D]

Check out this thread by tayous1:[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=98401[/url]

In it he refers to videotapes seized by the   Singapore authorities from Al Qaida suspects. It shows a lot of details about embassy row and the US Embassy in particular.

Couldn't these guys have just made mental notes as some of you have suggested?

Check it out!

Surely you don't want to make things easier for these terrorists, now do you?

Eric The(ButICouldBeWrong)Hun[>]:)]

Wait! I'll save you the trouble:

[size=4]Casing the Embassies[/size=4]
[b]Singapore Releases Videotapes Made by Terror Suspects[/b]

March 1 — For months, federal officials have told Americans to be on alert for potential terrorism and new videotapes made in Singapore reveal why the U.S. government remains concerned.
 
The videotapes were seized from men Singapore officials suspect of having links to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. The Singapore government released the tapes today.

[b]Four separate excerpts of the videos revealed how the terror suspects, like bank robbers, case out their targets looking for weak spots in security.[/b] The tape excerpts can be viewed at the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs Web site.

In one tape, labeled "Visiting Singapore Sightseeing," authorities say the sightseers are really terrorists casing the city's Embassy Row last October.

Several scenes were taken across the street from the American Embassy with the back of the head of one of the alleged terrorists visible on the video. [b]The tape zeroes in on security at the embassy's drive-way entrance. Similar shots were taken outside the British and Australian Embassies.[/b]

[b]Looking for Weakness[/b]

"They're looking for the weaknesses. How are we going to get in? Can I get away with it? Can I do it, to start with? Can I get beyond the security barriers? Can I get a truck bomb or group of people into that area?" Pat O'Hanlon, a former special agent with Diplomatic Security Service, said after viewing the tapes.

The man who authorities say shot the video of the American Embassy is now being held in the Philippines in connection with a series of bombings there. He was identified as a member of the Jemaah Islamiyah group, directly connected to the al Qaeda network.

O'Hanlon said the tapes show "they are clearly targeting embassies and other Western landmarks where they think they can get away with it."

In another video, a cameraman is taping as his car approaches the Israeli Embassy in Singapore. The cameraman of this video is "Sammy," a Canadian citizen of Kuwaiti descent who is also a member of Jemaah Islamiyah. As security guards come into view, Sammy, who is still at large, lowers his camera.

[b]Other scenes taped in November show naval ships docked in Singapore. This tape was labeled "mp 3 Rock 'n' roll."[/b]

[b]Security experts who have analyzed the tapes say they show tight security at the embassies that might lead terrorists to focus on easier, softer targets, including American businessmen and journalists.[/b]

See article at:[url]http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/wnt_singaporetapes020301.html[/url]

Now for crying out loud, what more do you need?

A friggin manual from Osama himself?

Eric The(PissingInTheWind)Hun[>]:)]

Wait, I've found an even [b]older[/b] story on the videotape article:

[size=4]Plot Uncovered[/size=4]
[b]Singapore Details Terror Plot
to Bomb U.S Targets[/b]

By Steven Gutkin, The Associated Press

S I N G A P O R E, Jan. 11 — Singapore released details today of an elaborate plot by al Qaeda-linked terrorists to blow up Western embassies, U.S. naval vessels, a shuttle bus carrying American soldiers and the offices of U.S. companies.

The government also released a videotape it said had been found in Afghanistan featuring a man now in custody narrating as the camera zooms in on alleged terror targets in Singapore.

"These are the same type of boxes which we intend to use," says the suspect, Hashim bin Abas, as video footage shows boxes resting on top of bicycles — an apparent reference to plans to hide explosives.

"It will not be suspicious to have a motorcycle or bicycle there," says bin Abas in the snowy video shown this evening on Singapore television.

The latest revelations came just days after the government announced the December arrests of 15 suspected Islamic militants who it said had been plotting to attack Western interests in the Southeast Asian city-state.

[b]Shocking Revelations[/b]

The arrests and alleged plots have shocked Singapore, a small island of 4 million people which has one of the world's most efficient intelligence-gathering networks and which has long been an oasis of stability and prosperity in an otherwise chaotic region.

Thirteen of the suspects are still in custody and two have been freed, Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs said in a news release today. It said the 13 can remain in custody for two years under the Internal Security Act, which allows detention without trial for anyone deemed a national security threat.

Those detained are believed to also have been planning attacks on the British High Commission, the Israeli Embassy and the Australian High Commission, the ministry said.

The government said the 13 are members of a clandestine organization called Jamaah Islamiyah, or Islamic Group, and that eight of them had received training in Afghanistan from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network.

"The group appeared to be dominated by foreign elements and subscribed to these elements' extremist ideology and its anti-American, anti-West agenda," the statement said.

[b]It said the suspects had planned to blow up a shuttle bus ferrying U.S. military personnel between a naval base and a subway station — in addition to U.S. naval vessels in the waters northeast of Singapore.[/b]

- continued -

[b]U.S. Government Appreciates Crackdown Efforts[/b]

Videotapes and some Arabic-language handwritten notes, which detailed plans to attack Americans in Singapore, were found in the rubble of an al Qaeda leader's house in Afghanistan, the ministry said.

Also found "was a list of over 200 U.S. companies in Singapore," it said.

"Three of them were highlighted as potential targets apparently because the office-bearers were regarded as fairly prominent members of the American community in Singapore," the statement added.

The U.S. Embassy in Singapore today said the United States was "appreciative" of Singapore's anti-terrorism efforts and "remains confident in the ability of the government of Singapore to protect American citizens and institutions here."

"Singapore remains a safe place to live or do business," the U.S statement said.

[b]One of the suspects — a technician for government-linked Singapore Technologies Aerospace — photographed Singapore's Paya Lebar Airbase and U.S. military aircraft there "as a potential target for terrorist attack," the government said.[/b]

[b]Affluent City State[/b]

About 17,000 Americans live in Singapore. Almost 6,000 multinational companies — many of them American — have regional offices in the affluent city-state and American companies are among the biggest employers in Singapore.

The 15 were arrested in December after authorities found bomb-making information along with photographs and video footage of the U.S. Embassy and other buildings in the suspects' homes.

The government said the suspects also had al Qaeda-linked materials, fake passports and forged immigration stamps. [b]The U.S. Navy has a logistics unit in Singapore and warships going to and from Afghanistan have been resupplied in the city-state. Last year, Singapore opened a new naval facility specially designed to accommodate U.S. aircraft carriers.[/b]

See article at:[url]http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/singapore020111_terror.html[/url]

Still want to permit clowns with cameras at the security checkpoint your family members will be using any time soon?

Eric The(IVoteNo!)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, I bet that all of the terrorists were wearing pants, most with pockets to store all sorts of dangerous implements of destruction (Nail clippers anyone?)

I think that to follow your reasoning, we should all immediately give up our pants, after all, we can't make it too easy for the T's can we?

Of course I am being silly, but so is this whole conversation.  I am not willing to give up even a tiny sliver of my rights for anyones percieved security, especially when it is a fallacy.

There is no absolute safety in this world, and whatever democrat that you are listening to is 100% wrong about it.

All I can say is, [b]hielo[/b] thank God you're not in charge of security for this nation!

Are we better off now than we were on Sept 11 in the matter of security at airports?

Only slighty. With idiots like Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, still whining about the friggin baseball bat that some GI took from him 'for security purposes', refuses to permit the dreaded 'racial profilng' even though, all 19 of the hi-jackers could be described accurately as young Middle Eastern men with olive complexions.

If he thinks that asking such pointed questions as 'Did you pack your bag' and "Has this bag left your sight' is gonna trap some terrorists, he's even more of an idiot than I suppose.

He also thinks it's a good idea to single out passengers that purchase one-way tickets with cash, even though almost all of the 19 terrorists purchased round-trip tickets with credit cards!

He's an idiot, but that can't be helped. I fear that it will take another calamity before people take this stuff seriously!

Good news, hielo - you don't have to! You just can't fly on a commercial airliner. But there are other avenues open for you to travel!

Absolute safety? Not in this world. Reasonable safety? Yep, and that's what we're trying to achieve.

No one wants their children to grow up in a bubble, but do you seriously think that some clown needs to be videotaping the gate through which your children are going to be flying for the stupid, hilarious, sad, confused reasons set forth in this thread?

You needn't give me an answer, just explain your views to your children.

Eric The(TellThemTheBoogiemanIsReal,Too-HeWearsATurbanAndWeDon'tKnowWhereHeIs!)Hun[>]:)]

Yes, the man needs to be able to video tape any damn thing he wants to video tape Eric, a video of an xray machine is not going to further the goals of your security state one iota, other than innuring the comman man to having his rights stripped away.

No thanks Eric, it is not worth it.

Of course, there are some that feel that it is better to die on their feet, as a free amn, than to die laying at the feet of your masters, of course there is a certain amount of security laying at their feet, isn't there?

Here is a quote, maybe even to live by: "If we acquiesce in the face of discrimination, we accept the responsibility ourselves and allow those responsible to salve their conscience by beleiveing they they have our acceptance and concurrence.  We should, therefore, protest openly everything that smacks of discrimination or slander".  Think about it.

If we CANNOT video tape checkpoints, what is next statue of liberty,the white house ,my wife naked shit man is this a free society or not.


           If not then hell nobody go to work for a month and see how much these elected officals give us what we want. Any takers

If we as a nation change are foriegn policy would this stop terrorists.I think so, so in all of this waste of money on HOMELAND SECURITY
would this money be better spent on foreign aid as in food like we did we russia during the cold war.But then big business couldn't make money from aid like WAR and HOMELAND SECURITY


                How about old bush turn them enron papers over to the GAO what is he and dicky scared of .

P.s. as for airport security if some one's what to hijack a plane I BELIEVE THAT IF ALL PASSENGERS COULD CARRY HANDGUNS aka CCW there would never be any hijacked planes in america.

STUPID IS, AS STUPID DOES. YOU DONT GRAB A PERSONS FIREARM UNLESS YOU INTEND TO TAKE IT FROM THEM AND SHOT THEM WITH IT BEFORE THEY GET THEIR BACKUP!!!!!!i dont think that this person was to smart in doing what he did i think he deserves a dumb a-- award and that it should be left at that.

Amen to that kentstate4... the events of sept 11 show exactly what happens, on a smaller scale of course, when a group of people as a whole are disarmed.  Would you want to hijack a plane or shoot up a school if you knew the attendants or teachers were trained and armed?

I would kind of like to hear his side of the story.  As far as I know, the JBT was hitting him with the rifle, and he only grabbed at it to keep from being hit.  I am sure the whole incident was caught on video, so then we'll know the truth.  Doh!

"If we accept and acquiesce in the face of discrimination, we accept the responsibility ourselves and allow those responsible to salve their conscience by believing that they have our acceptance and concurrence. We should, therefore, protest openly everything . . . that smacks of discrimination or slander."

Mary McLeod Bethune (1875-1955)
"Certain Unalienable Rights," What the Negro Wants, edited by Rayford W. Logan (1944)

That's very nice, hielo, but what the hell does that have to do with the issues at hand?

Or let me put it the way Brother Cleaver put it:

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem."

(Leroy) Eldridge Cleaver (1935-1998)
speech given in San Francisco in 1968

But dollars to donuts, I just bet you are not going to be filming anything near a security checkpoint at an airport anytime soon!

Why, brave people once set down at lunch counters where it was illegal for them to sit?

Can't ya'll muster up the courage to take a little old video of some National Guardsmen trying to protect your asses?

Take my challenge, I'll help with the bail $!

Eric The(HowDoesItFeelToBeAtTheFeetOfTheLeviathan?)Hun[>]:)]

Post from mejames -

'As far as I know'? Where did you get any sort of information that Meaney was being hit with the National Guardsman's rifle?

Can you cite a source for that information?

And why did you refer to that National Guardsman as a 'JBT'? Do you know something that we don't know?

C'mon boy, spit it out!

Eric The(Inquisitive)Hun[>]:)]

just a question:  Since when do you have a constitutional right to fly in an airplane?  This being so they can make any law they want regarding prerequesites in order to fly. IMO
This would also include anything to do with an airport because what purpose do you have in an airport if it is not to fly.

ERIC LOOK OVER ME ON THIS ONE!MEJAMES WHO CARES WHAT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY IS !!!!!!!!!YOU DONT GRAB A MANS WEAPON UNLESS YOU HAVE A REASON!!AND THAT REASON IS NOT PROTECTING YOURSELF FROM SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE!!                                              PUT YOURSELF IN SECURITY'S PLACE I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN TRY AND GRAB MY GUN!!!!!!!!!!!1MEEEJAMES
DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

I care what his side of the story is.  Has it ever occurred to you that the Guard may have been in the wrong?  I do not know.  So, if you having a heated discussion with a NG and he lost his temper and started hitting you, you would just sit there and take it?  

You are relying on media reports that may be inaccurate or based on outright lies.  I don't know the truth, but in America he is still innocent until proven guilty.  

Eric, do I know something you don't?  Yes, I know I don't have all the facts.  I am willing to keep an open mind about what happened until there is more information.

i was not there so i dont know what happened but i dont think that the "NG" just started hitting him for no reason!!!!but i wasnt there so who knows unless you know more than us.but i have and will always!!!!!!!!believe that if you come after my weapon!! you will get a butt stock to the face in my defense!!!

Eric, with all due respect, I fail to see the relevance of the tapes in those articles you so generously provided.  The places and information documented on those tapes could have just as easily been compiled with pen and paper from even a casual observation.  The tapes merely show the terrorists were planning to attack the embassy.  Do you not think they could have planned an attack on the embassy without the use of a videotape?  Or do you believe that the terrorist problem can be solved by simply banning possession and use of video cameras?

Seems to me the videotape was not crucial to their plan. Although the embassy was videotaped, as you highlighted from the article, [b]"Security experts who have analyzed the tapes say they show tight security at the embassies that might lead terrorists to focus on easier, softer targets, including American businessmen and journalists."[/b]  Thus, the mere taping of security there did not present a hazzard, threat, or a breach of security.  Once discovered, however, the video did reveal some of their plans, but there is nothing to indicate those plans could not have been made without the use of a video camera.

Thank God you're not dictator, Eric.

Do you think that terrorists cannot go out and buy a concealable camera, such as the news organizations use to do "hidden camera" reporting?

How does it make anyone safer to prohibit a guy from having his confrontation with security taped, when the security people might be in the wrong?

How does strip-searching elderly congressmen with steel pins in their legs make it safer?

How does it make anyone safer to club a 90-year-old grannie to death because she was taking a few photos at the airport and happened to catch the checkpoint in the view behind her grandkid?

Hasn't happened yet, but by your logic it would be excusable since she must obviously be a terrorist.

"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." -- Benjamin Franklin

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

I would guess that most people would say they have the right to travel freely about the US on whatever personal business compels them to do so.  Airplanes are the most efficient means of travelling long distances.  I contend that you do have the right to travel on airplanes, just as you have the right to travel unmolested by government agents on the public highways (provided of course you don't make a nuisance of yourself by reckless operation of your vehicle).

All bullshit aside if it is ok for me to carry in supermarkets,banks,and in all other public places,I see no reason i and my fellow ccw holders and not carry on planes. If any of u can give any reason why this should be implemented in the next session of are law makers ,state your reasons.


                 Just for the storm troopers that may read this ,i would nevewr try to take a weapon on a plane for no reason even if i feel unsafe as i do every time i fly.


p.s let's say we have this right to carry on the day of sept 11,2001 {as u didn't know the year} i could say there would still be a WTC and a PENTAGON instead on a TRIANGLE  as we have now { i know a little humor never hurt any1}.

          The government doesn't like to hear such commom solutions to  the worlds problems,so i guess  that 's why i'm an arborist here in alaska instead of a [sorry good for nothing law maker].End of my rant.

just 1 man's deranged view  peace i'm out

If you don't like the checkpoints or feel violated in your rights, DRIVE!! nobody is making you fly. The use of airtravel is a privilege not a right, where was that in our constitution again?? Kinda like how the massively misunderstood separation of church and state has been side stepped. It is not illegal to pray at school, even in groups, but to mandate it is wrong. So these activities are not mandated. However to say the people who do wish to pray cannot because others might be offended is a violation of the prayers rights. (Free Speech) Again shut up and deal with it, or go away.

As for the filming of security checkpoints, there is no valid reason for it, and it should be illegal. This man was not a member of the press, nor was his wife, there went that argument. By the way, they have been allowed to film. As for the proof of groping of female passengers, the tape was obtained illegally, inadmissible!

If he thought he was making a point, the question is to whom?? The NG nobody (no offense) who has no say in the matter other than "Yes Sir!" That will get your point across.

Try to take a firearm from my hands, or just grab it, see what happens. This is very plainly an aggressive movement, with the intent of gaining control of a lethal weapon. Try that on a cop sometime and see what happens. Betcha bleed. I think the NG'man showed a great deal of restraint and should be applauded, for it, but reprimanded also, as his response to this should have been automatic.

Shaggy,

The depth and intricacy of the planning that can be accomplished using video surveilance tapes by far exceeds that which can ba accomplished with written notes, and "remember that". that is the relevance of the tapes Eric the Hun mentioned.

71-Hour-Achmed,

The congressman was searched because we are too busy being P.C. to deal with reality. A little logical profiling would have alleviated this search. As for granny getting clubbed, when did this happen, or was there evidence presented that it was logical to assume it would?? Oh wait, lets take the thread that started this. A man grabs two-handedly the loaded M-16 of a NG'man, and still has all of his teeth, and no new holes in his body, though some may be somewhat expanded at this point. I think granny is probably safe. You are right about the concealabel cameras, where there is a will strong enough, invariably there is a way, but that does not mean that you ignore an obvious breach of security protocol.

kentstate4,

I am not even gonna bother with someone, so well educated, I fear I would have no chance.

if you don't like the government monitoring your internet activity and email, USE THE POST OFFICE!  Nobody is making you go on the internet.  The use of the internet is a privilege not a right, where was that in our constitution again??

Only the news media is allowed to film public places!  Private citizens should shut up and do as they're told.  It's just like campaign finance reform -- why should political action committees and other "special interest groups" (like those gun wackos at the NRA) be allowed to run single-issue ads attacking candidates just before elections??

As for the incineration of those children at Waco, the shooting of an unarmed young man by an FBI agent the other day, and the beating and rape-by-toilet-plunger of Abner Louima, the police were just doing their job!  How dare you complain!  You have no idea what they go through every day, and they deserve to make it home safely at night.

Wow, you actually made a valid point.  Amazing.

When in that did I gripe about monitoring of my internet activity. I don't like it, but I choose to use the internet, knowing that it happens, kind of like I am doing now.


   "Only the news media is allowed to film public places! Private citizens should shut up and do as they're told. It's just like campaign finance reform -- why should political action committees and other "special interest groups" (like those gun wackos at the NRA) be allowed to run single-issue ads attacking candidates just before elections??

As for the incineration of those children at Waco, the shooting of an unarmed young man by an FBI agent the other day, and the beating and rape-by-toilet-plunger of Abner Louima, the police were just doing their job! How dare you complain! You have no idea what they go through every day, and they deserve to make it home safely at night."

Where in the hell did you get this from what I said? Maybe someone else can help me see the correlation?
I am not even going to touch Waco, whole 'nother ball of S@*#
The FBI Agent should be charged and held, same as any other citizen would be.
And I don't know anything about the plunger incident you mention, so I will decline to comment.

You guys are missing the important part of the story his woman pulled up he shirt show her bra, Was she hot did anybody hear or so that.

Please provide me with some examples of the sort of info that can be obtained by video and not by observation with notetaking.  I'm looking for specific examples here - location of guards?  Timing of breaks?  Handling proceedures for checking luggage?  All this can be observed by the naked eye and made note of.  My point is that this prohibition against videotaping is pointless, 'feel-good' legislation that has little or no practical use. I can't think of anything that could be discovered by tape that could not be discovered by the process of careful observation, but I'm not a terribly bright guy, and I haven't had training in the field of security.  Others here, including yourself seem to feel that videotape is the 'magic key' to circumventing security, so I want to know specifically what crucial info can be gained through tape that cannot be observed by the naked eye.

It sounds like I am the only NG guy here who was called up for airport security, so I’m going to throw in my .02 as the only person here who has first hand experience in this situation.  First of all, for those of you who think the security personnel was trying to feel up his wife, there are only 2 reasons she would need to patted down.

1. She set off the medal detector.  
2. She was a randomly selected.  If this is the case, the person searching her must be the same sex (as of 2 wks ago), and would not be the same person who chose her as a random.  In other words, the chances of security wanting to grope his wife are very small.  

As to why she exposed her bra, she is probably a comedian too and thought it would be funny.  Women are never asked to lift their shirts as part of a screening.  

He wants to videotape the checkpoint, but is not allowed to by law.  Whether you agree or disagree with this policy doesn’t matter.  The national guard and airport screeners must enforce the regulations put forth by the Transportation Security Administration (which used to be the FAA).  Reporters can videotape the checkpoint because they are typically filming from a distance, and are not able to film close ups of the X-Ray screen, and ETD (explosive trace detection) screen.  Private citizens cannot film the checkpoint because it would be much easier for them to get video of these screens.

Grabbing the NG’s rifle.  This is a big no-no.  Period.  He should have been butt-stroked, if not shot for pulling something like this.  Any attempt to disarm the NG, is considered deadly force (just like it would be with the police), and the NG would have been justified to respond with any level of force necessary.

For those of you saying he was justified in what he did, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.  I don’t care if he flies a lot, is a big funny comedian, is having a bad day, or if his dog died.  That is no reason for him to try to disarm me.  Do you think I like going to the airport and doing nothing all day?  Did I ask to be NG at the airport so I could harass people and infringe on their civil rights F**K NO!  I am their because I am following a lawful order.  Any of you who have ever been in the military should respect that.  (And if you haven’t been in, you’re in no position to say anything.).

And for those of you who feel that it is unconstitutional or have any other major problems with security just remember, you don’t have to fly!  Feel free to drive or take a boat next time.

HKer -

FWIW, I don't think anyone here is questioning whether grabbing for the guard's rifle was a good idea or not, if the facts are as simple as the article implies.  Nor does anyone (at least not me) question that such a law or regulation would be upheld in this current situation.  I know it would, just as I know most gun laws would.  However, I merely question the wisdom of such a law or regulation.  As far as I can see it has no real effect on security, but maybe you can enlighten me as you obviously have firsthand experience here.  You mentioned the risk of a private citizen getting up close footage of an X-ray or ETD screen. What would be the harm? I'm quite serious here; I don't see the problem. Its not as if possession of a film of the screen of one of these machines is a 'free pass' to go through security without being checked. Even if you do film the screen of one of those machines up close, how could it possibly help you get through security if you have a firearm or a quanitiy of explosives in your possession?

The easiest way for me to explain it to you is probably through an example, so here we go.

2 people working together plan to sneak explosives guns or whatever through security.  The first person goes through clean, and proceeds to film x-ray screen.  The second person comes through a few people later and sends his bag through.  Contained in the bag are completely legal items, but are similar in composition to prohibited items.  

By sending these items through the x-ray the terrorists attempt to determine what the screener sees about the bag such as the items size, composition, shape, etc. in relation to the other legal items in the bag.  

The first person could zoom in on the screen and get a close up of what is being displayed, and allow the person to see detail that would not be visible to someone standing 20+ feet away.

This is about all I can say without disclosing additional information that may possibly be considered a security risk.  Does that make more sense?

Post from shaggy -

[b]You say you don't know [u]why[/u] they do it, but you must admit that terrorists do it![/b] So that is sufficient reason alone to allow the government to simply prohibit the videotaping of airport security checkpoints.


Well, since you've already made your point that [u]you[/u] can't think of any reasons, and the reasons that others have offered have not impressed you, the fact that terrorists and criminals have used and continue to use videotapes to plan their crimes hasn't swayed you, and you still need convincing, I simply don't know [u]what[/u] it would take to convince you!

The 'smoking gun' in this case are all the videotapes that have been uncovered in this case so far! Apparently, the Al Qaeda may be as clueless as you as to why they're taping, but they still continue to tape!

'Length of time on target' comes to mind. A quick sweep of a videocamera can save a whole lot of information that simple observation cannot!

Also, it allows the 'sharpest' of the group to stay out of the picture, while the dullest knife in the drawer is sent to videotape the intended target!

It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't get their ditzy American girlfriends to take the videos, [i][b]'cause you know, honey, they're giving me such dirty looks at the airport nowadays' and I need to know what to expect at the airport when I go home to ask my parents for permission to marry you!'[/b][/i]

But simply because you cannot or will not accept the fact that the terrorists videotape for whatever reasons they do, is no reason for the rest of us not to continue to insist on the ban on videotaping!

I just can't wait to hear [u]that[/u] clown's explanation for why he was videotaping!

'Cause the security folks were unnecessarily oogling his wife's [i][b]breasteses[/b][/i]?

Sorry, wrong comedian![:D]

Eric The(InLivingColor)Hun[>]:)]

Shaggy,

I will not attempt to list out the various aspects of a scene that can be scrutinized much further on film, video, or still. There are just too many. Ever think about why photos, and sometimes even video of a crime scene or accident are taken by the police. Because the human eye misses thing, and typically a lot of them when trying hard to take everything in. While you are writing your notes, something else is happening, and you just missed it. As Eric put it, length of time on target is the key to video. Try standing around the checkpoint for an extended observation period, and see if you stay long, I would not bet on it.

That brings to mind an interesting possibility for the concealable cams though. But that is irrelevant.

Good point sixgun357, can't believe I missed that the first time I looked at the original story. Sure is a good thing that I can go back and look at it again.

"because I am following a lawful order."
HK thanks for service, but are you going to be saying the same thing when it comes time to load the cattle cars?

HUNny---your arguments have been addressed before and I think that they were proved baseless. I can buy the machine if I want or I can get promotional materials directly from the company. Admit it, no matter what the socalled terrorists do, our response should be only quick response and death, not shaking down toddlers. If turning our own people into criminals is the only way that the feds think they can stop
these type of attacks, then I think we need new leaders.

That struck me as the most ironic thing I've ever read on this board.  Kind of like HCI asking why people need assault weapons or handguns.  "We don't see the need for it therefore they must not have a need either.  Surely, at the very least, terrorists could accomplish their same goals with single shot notebooks instead of full-auto cameras".  Man, that's funny.  I think you already know the answer-[b]Because they want video[/b]-but I'll elaborate further anyways.

You may choose to get written directions to a house while I may prefer pictures of landmarks.  Another may prefer maps.  Neither is necessarily best, but as good as any single method is, having two or three is even better.  Notes are fine; notes [b]and[/b] video is better.

Here are several specific reasons why a terrorist may prefer video instead of/in addition to notes:
1.  He is illiterate
2.  He can only write in a language (i.e. arabic) which he fears will attract attention.  
3.  He wants to show a high level of detail to others that weren't there.
4.  He wants to get the input and observations of others.  Allows several people to analyze the operation while exposing only one.
5.  Knows that sketches and timetables of security operations can be incriminating.  He can claim a video was merely to show  relatives who've never seen an airport.  
6.  Allows comparison of two locations (or the same location at different times) side by side, to establish patterns, similarities, or differences.
7.  Permits a person be far away from the checkpoint and zoom in (with digital stabilization, no less) on monitors and displays that he can't approach to view with the naked eye
8.  Allows him to record and analyze quick events such as the response of a screener to the contents of a "test" bag, reactions to unattended baggage, and reactions to staged distractions.
9.  Can send somebody in (i.e. grandma) who won't raise suspicions but may not have an eye for security details.

Ever watched Home Improvement?  Did you notice right away how the neighbor never showed his full face or did that pattern take a few episodes to be noticed?  Most people (including myself) watched it several times before noticing that quirk.  As another example have you ever watched a movie, listened to a song, or drove down the road and noticed something new?  It was there all along.  If you had taken notes it wouldn't have mattered; some things we just don't see the first time around no matter how careful we are.  

A video camera obviously doesn't show you anything more than what you can see with the naked eye (except for the zoom feature).  But for those that don't want put their eyes at risk more than once (or at all) or who don't trust their eyes to capture everything on the first attempt, then video is a useful tool regardless of their objectives.

And that, I think, is really what it is all about.  In the end you just can't have it both ways.  You can't argue on one hand that there is a legitimate need for private citizens to film a security checkpoint (couldn't they just take notes on suspected abuses?) and then turn around and argue that videotapes have no value to terrorists.  Either video is a valuable documentation and reference tool or it isn't.  It doesn't discriminate based upon your motives.  Take your pick.

And that, I think, is really what it is all about. In the end you just can't have it both ways. You can't argue on one hand that there is a legitimate need for private citizens to film a
security checkpoint (couldn't they just take notes on suspected abuses?) and then turn around and argue that videotapes have no value to terrorists. Either video is a valuable
documentation and reference tool or it isn't. It doesn't discriminate based upon your motives. Take your pick.-----

uh your honor this gentleman fondled my wife----I have my notes right here..
Can you really be this out of touch?

Post from hound -

How so? How were my arguments proved baseless?Show me where that occurred!

Of course the terrorists could possibly buy the machine or get brochures, but why not do both, or all? Besides being incredibly expensive, I am certain that the manufacturers are on alert to notify authorities of any interest in the machines or brochures, etc.

But why focus on the machines? The whole scene would be what they're interested in and I believe that you have been given a lot of [u]unrefuted[/u] reasons for why that might be!

Sh|t, you guys! You'd rather climb a tree and believe some big government conspiracy BS than stay on the ground and use your reasoning abilities!

The terrorists use videotape, period. They have used videotape to record their targets, period. They will continue to do so unless they are stopped, period.

Very simple. Anything that prevents them from doing so is a plus. Anything that permits them to do so is a negative.

Any your rights to videotape a security checkoint is one of the little sacrifices that you will have to make in order for this to occur!

Gee, I really want to be next to you guys in the end times, the enemy will hear us for certain with all the bellyaching and whining going on!

'So-called terrorists'? Son, did I miss something? How are they 'so-called' terrorists?  

Did Sept 11th turned you into a criminal? Then why think that it turned [u]anyone[/u] into a criminal unless they purposefully flout the law?

Mr. Meaney was requested several times to stop videotaping, he wasn't arrested then. He got into an argument with the security folks, but he wasn't arrested then.

He finally tried to lay his hands on the Nat'l Guardsman's M-16. Had he gotten hold of it, another guardsman should have mowed his stupid ass down, before that deranged clown hurt someone!

If the 'feds' were looking to criminalize reasonable behavior, they should and could have arrested him simply for videotaping!

Why didn't they? Why did they give the schmuck so many chances to back away and [u]not[/u] be arrested?

Eric The(Exasperated)Hun[>]:)]

And here, my friends, is evidence of the most insidious damage the whole "gun control" movement does.

It pits us, the protectors, against ourselves.

Those of us who go into the armed services (US Military, National Guard, Law Enforcement, Security, Etc.) do so for some of the most noble reasons.  We are trained to take care of problems.  A problem could be someone trying to take your firearm.  If this problem occurs, there are several very fast remedies which are drilled into our heads because these remedies are designed to KEEP US ALIVE.

On the other hand, we, the protectors, are being told to conduct ourselves in ways that violate the rights of our fellow citizens.  What the hell are we supposed to do?  Quit?  Then someone else will end up doing our job and we become the "little people" just like them, or do we do our jobs, keep our positions, and continue to oppress our own people?

This is a very difficult question to address, let alone answer.  This comedian made a grave error and was lucky he did not get shot.  His error was not his protest;  It was his process.  Not in strategy, but execution.  That he is one of the leftist elite explains his lack of tactics and judgment.  What is somewhat ironic was that he was just now getting around to protesting something that he and all of his ilk helped bring about.

I hope someone else besides me sees the incredible irony of this situation.

In the meantime, that poor guardsman is probably getting his peepee slapped by his sergeant for NOT butt-stroking this guy, and being quietly praised by his politically-savvy lieutenant for his excellent "judgment and restraint".

This whole situation stinks of a setup.  We the protectors are being turned against ourselves and the gutless, liberal left is loving every minute of it.  They have orchestrated this tragic flaw downfall like a Shakespearean play.

Let us not go blindly into this situation.  Let us take a good look at our intelligence and figure out what the next move should be.

We're being played as suckers.  ALL of us.

What we need to remember is that once we take off that badge/turn in our ID/turn in our license, we become the little people just like everyone else.  How do you feel knowing that you have helped bring about the oppression that is being done in the name of the State, for the sake of "security" that does not exist nor can it ever under these circumstances?  How can we live with ourselves knowing that people JUST LIKE US are the ones with the rifles?

How can we live with ourselves knowing that people JUST LIKE US are the ones we're bullying about with our government issue rifles?

It is just about time to address this question.

BTW, I still think that comedian was kind of a bonehead.  It's just that this one incident is evidence of an even deeper affliction in this country.  It's said that the Jester was the only person who could dare tell the King the truth without losing his head, because it was all in fun.

Why was this guy videotaping a checkpoint?  Who knows.  Did anyone care to ask?  Comedians do strange things to tell the truth; Better than the news media, anyhow.

But I have ranted enough.
[soapbox]

Good Luck to us all.  We're going to need it.

Panz
[bounce]

So let me get this straight- since we can't protect ourselves from all possible threats then we shouldn't attempt to protect ourselves from any?  That's like saying we shouldn't worry about somebody stealing things in the open because they'd just come back and do it when we weren't looking anyways.  We can't stop all the illegal immigrants coming into the country so why bother trying to stop any of them?



Don't confuse the occasional, and unfortunate, abuse of a system with an indictment of the system as a whole.  Saying that it doesn't always work is not an argument for saying it shouldn't exist.  Does your car always work the way it's supposed to?  Do you put up with it anyways?  Why is that?  Maybe because the cost is outweighed by the benefit.



No, rather than parroting everybody else or making up what we want to hear let's look at what he really said:
[center]"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
-Ben Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania[/center]

Note that he found nothing objectionable about giving up non-essential liberties for temporary nor did he express anything about giving up essential liberties to obtain permanent safety.  He wasn't the no-compromise idealist that he is often painted as today.  In fact he was probably the most pragmatic of our founding fathers.

Do you really feel that videotaping airport security checkpoints is an [b]essential[/b] liberty?  If so then tell me what you would consider a non-essential liberty.  Don't come back with the response that all liberties are essentail.  Ben Franklin differentiated between the two and, as you've seen fit to appoint yourself his voice in the 21st century, I would expect that you could too.

You walk into a courtroom and you say "Your honor, this man, _______ fondled my wife.  He did it while engaged in _____, while we were passing security station ______.  The incident occured at _____ on ______ date.  The following people were also present ______, ______, and ______.  I complained to his supervisor, Mr. ______.  I asked him ___ times to stop, as did my wife.  He responded by saying ______.  Ultimately the situation ended when ______.

Those would be powerful, persuasive, and admissible notes.  Not as good as video, of course, but still very good.  The same favorable attributes of video that prove useful in court also prove useful in blacked out apartments rented with cash and occupied by men bent on destruction.

The point is that you can't argue video cameras are useful in support of good causes but not in support of bad ones.  That they'll record lapses in performance which result in fondling women but that they'll somehow mysteriously fail to record lapses in performance which can be used to violate security.

Again, take your pick.

Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about hound.  My orders state that I am to "augment and assist police and civillian securtity".  Since you are obviously of limited intelligence let me explain this further.  

This means when someone tries to circumvent security, I assist the police in stopping them.  When someone refuses to be wanded or won't allow their wife to be wanded, I assist civillian security in making sure they are wanded.  

I do not, nor would I, go door to door taking peoples personal firearms, or round up all jews to take them to the gas chamber.  I feel sorry for you if you are unable to understand the difference between these scenarios.

We are surely all better off with the ridiculous "security" measures in place for years now.  Aircraft are officially gun-free zones, thanks to your tax dollars and the FAA.  But don't tell that to the people who have brought ALL KINDS OF STUFF through security.  Those third-grade drop-outs manning the metal detectors are pretty sharp--you can't fool them.  OH, but I forgot that they are now professional goverment employees!  Remember that when they are feeling up your wife it's all for the children.

The FAA is resposonsible for setting up this gun-free aircraft system that resulted in the 9/11 atrocity.  The heads of those agencies should have resigned in disgrace.

Oh yeah, I should have thought of that.  Except then I'd have to be thumbscanned, photographed, register my address, and have my personal info in a database to get a driver's license.

But then I'd just run into a myriad of border patrol, highway patrol, or local police checkpoints anyway.  Or maybe I'd be subject to a "routine" stop.  To "check" that I have a driver's license, I am not intoxicated, I have no illegal substances, no "illegal" guns, that there are no warrants out for me, that my car is properly registered and inspected, or G-d forbid that I forgot to put on a seat belt.

Or I could run into an FBI agent who thinks I fit the description of a bank robber.

Exactly.

It's like saying, "you have the right to defend yourself, but there's no constitutional right to own a submachine gun."

Wait a second...  how about that one about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?

Post from Maddog50 -

Maybe, but if they didn't do it the airlines surely would have done it!

The very first time a drunken passenger pulled out a .45 and waved it in the air!

So tell me, how long has the FAA had the gun-free rule? Since the 50s? Since the 60s? 70s?

Why are some of us just [u]now[/u] deciding that we need guns aboard jet airliners?

I don't recall it being a hotbed of contention prior to Sept 11th, so why now?

Did someone just discover the Second Amendment in a civics book?

Eric The(Hmmmm)Hun[>]:)]

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE.  SO HELP ME GOD."

Ok so I am an idiot---is the first thing in this oath defend the constitution? before follow orders? Is it constitutional to shake down women and children? Or to harass and arrest someone who is involved in something that is note a danger to himself or anyone else? or just because shrub and ridge said it was ok to thrash the constitution, that makes it ok?


HUNny---smile ya new I would get to you---ya wear pants, use a phone, have a passport, go to flight school.....stop it now. THERE ARE NO LITTLE SACRIFICES...that's how our shooters lifestyle almost came to a grinding halt.
Kapishe?

Yes Sept 11 and the office of the Fuhrer--oops
homeland security came really close into turning me into a criminal.....I fly for a living...I can't do this, I can't do that....and it was legal on Sept 10. You want to say something that we both agree on....say this.."the only way to make terrorists stop is to make them dead"
Not strip searching anyone or taking their clippers

Once upon a time (long before my time), sportsmen and hunters could take their guns with them on commercial aircraft.  I'd provide you with the exact date and time of this policy, but I left my copy of "Complete History of FAA Policy" at home...  [;)]

I signed on with the "no compromise" crowd long before 2001.  The events of 9/11 were a reminder to us all that gun-free zones are bad.

It's only now that the majority of sheeple have been sledgehammered over the head with 9/11 that they begin to get it.

Removing gun prohibitions for pilots would be a good start.  Ultimately we should all take our inherent right to self-defense on-board with us when we fly. [uzi]

Post from Maddog50 -

Unloaded, locked firearm containers? Or fully loaded weapons, slung over the back?

I find it very difficult to believe that at any time in modern commercial aviation history that loaded weapons were allowed in the passenger compartment, but if you say so!

Was it in the 30s? I know it was way before my time!

But then again I don't remember a whole lot of press from back in those days about commercial airliners being hi-jacked and flown into tall buildings.

Things change, people have to adjust, I suppose.

I'm with you on the pilots being armed. Before I get on a flight with [u]armed[/u] civilians, however, there are a few requirements I would insist on:

1. no booze served during the flight, nor would any obviously intoxicated persons be permitted to board

2. everyone brings a copy of his own latest psychological profile with him while boarding

3. copies of his latest pay stubs

4. proper ammo for use inside aircraft

I simply don't want to have to have a shootout at 30,000 feet with a drunk sociopath who just lost his job.

I'm sure other passengers will have their own requirements.

And [b]no one[/b] would get on that plane!

Eric The(I'dMakeCertainEveryoneCameAboardWithALovedOne,AsAnExtraPrecaution)Hun[>]:)]