Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.

Get on line, and find your elected representatives. Send 'em emails,
outlining this outrageous behavior.

Pick up the phone, and call those stuff shirts. Explain what happened, and
how outraged you are at this particular National Guardsman's actions.

Write letters to the editor. Blast the guy -- and the elected officials, if
they don't respond -- all over the local newspapers.

Got local talk radio? Call in and bitch!

Call the guardsman's commanding officer. They are quite accessible, and
usually quite reasonable. (At least they are around here.)

Don't just sit there and complain to us -- do something that works!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Call the guardsman's commanding officer. They are quite accessible,
and usually quite reasonable. (At least they are around here.)


That would be my first course of action.

In a previous article, "John T" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message


Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your
right to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure. I guess I was wrong.

No, you're not wrong. You just forgot that the same protection applies to
those who want to call a web site "the far left frindge(sic) of radical
socialists".

I wasn't denying the anonymous coward's right to call the site "the far
left frindge(sic) of radical socialists". I was saying that even if the
guy with the web site *was* on "the far left frindge(sic) of radical
socialists" (and if you conclude that that from that particular blog, then
so am I and most of my friends), that doesn't abrogate his right to take
pictures of a tourist attraction without being threatened by 8 police,
including three "federal agents from Homeland Security".


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If netcat is compiled with -DGAPING_SECURITY_HOLE, the -e argument
specifies a program to exec after making or receiving a successful
connection. -- netcat README file

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US
citizens
on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?


can you say 'Patriot Act'?

The Patriot Act requires no such thing.

with the Patriot Act the authorities in the US can do almost whatever
they
want.

Baloney.

http://www.google.com/search?q=patri...hts+government

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=12126&c=207
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity...?ID=9158&c=111

I submit that the hyped up opinions of a few extremist groups are not a
reliable reference.

Next time you go there for a picnic, you might want to take a local
newspaper reporter and a lawyer with you.

C,

few extremist groups a


If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
call the administration...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Technically, the US military is not suppose
to act on US Soil (at least not in the states, I
don't really know about territories).

In fact, whenever a US Naval Vessel makes a stop,
a US Coast Guard Offuce MUST be present to take
law enforcement action.

The Patriot Act does not change that.
However, it certainly provides much greater leeway
by "Law Enforcement Agencies".
NSA is technically part of the Dept. of Defense.
It has been pushed over to the:
- FBI
- Coast Guard
- Dept. of Homeland Security
in order to avoid the "military involvement" issues on
homeland soil within our borders.

There are actually several "borders" defined on the seas.
12-mile statue is the one that comes to mind relating
to that involvement.
Some of the other broders relate to "Economic Involvement" or
impact, etc.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
C,

few extremist groups a


If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
call the administration...

I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the weird
positions that it constantly takes in court.

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "John T" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message


Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your
right to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure. I guess I was wrong.

To whom was this directed? The police in the story or "the anonymous
coward"?

I wasn't denying the anonymous coward's right to call the site "the
far left frindge(sic) of radical socialists". I was saying that even
if the guy with the web site *was* on "the far left frindge(sic) of
radical socialists" (and if you conclude that that from that
particular blog, then so am I and most of my friends), that doesn't
abrogate his right to take pictures of a tourist attraction without
being threatened by 8 police, including three "federal agents from
Homeland Security".

Nowhere in the "nutball radical socialist's" article did he claim his
freedom of speech was infringed. Neither, in fact, were his Fourth
Amendment protections violated. Further. we only have his side of the
story. Come back with the rest of the story and we'll see if we can find
the real truth together.

In the meantime, I submit that seeing a brown-skinned individual (perhaps
Middle Eastern in appearance) taking photos of a prominent landmark while
making notes is reasonably suspicious. If you'll recall, the reason the
police first showed up to his house was in response to a citizen complaint
and the police report revealed nothing wrong.

Now, the second scenario where the eight officers surrounded him probably
could have been avoided if he'd cooperated with the first guard with the
dog. I wasn't there so I don't know what was the demeanor of either the
officer(s) or the writer/photographer. Until then, and based solely on the
way he wrote the story, I can easily imagine Spiers having a bit of a chip
on his shoulder (that also being understandable even if unwise).

I can just as easily see some of the officers having a bit of an attitude,
so that brings me back to my real point:

Bring me both sides of the story before you expect me to jump on any
bandwagon.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" said:
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
call the administration...

I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the weird
positions that it constantly takes in court.

Yeah, that insisting that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are
not taken away from people arbitrarily is just *weird*.

--
Paul "Card carrying member" Tomblin
I wouldn't be surprised if I'd have to put garlic in the CD drawer
to really get rid of it.
-- Arthur van der Harg on 'Gator'