posted
Yesterday afternoon, as I was leaving work, I drove along the road near the airport.
They are adding a runway so construction is going on there. The usual area where people would park and watch the planes leave is gone, but it is not surprising to see a car parked on the side of the road so people could look at the airplanes.
So I took little notice to the man standing by his car watching the planes take off.
Then he pulled out a small cheap camera and started taking pictures of planes taking off.
I noted he was arabic looking. All my alarm bells went off.
What was he doing taking pictures?
Would this be a sight for a terrorist attack?
A Ground to Air missle could do a lot of damage to the planes taking off overhead.
President Bush and John Kerry come to St. Louis often for the campaign, but during those visits this road is closed off while the planes land.
I looked back and noted he had a late model white sports car, but I did not have time to notice more before I turned a corner and could see more.
Should I notify the FBI? Homeland Security? Or is this just another white guy jumping at darkskinned shadows?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am honest enough to say I don't know Farmgirl. I would like to think I would be, but I don't know.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd report it, whatever the race/age/sex/whatever of the person. Since you're providing no identifying information, you won't be responsible for someone being harassed. It may make security officials watch the area. They can respond appropriately.
posted
If he had a giant lens that could be a laser for guiding a missle (you know, like the one in "In the Army Now), that could be a problem.
But I wouldn't say you are racist either. Most people keep forgetting that Arabs are caucasian. They throw "racist" around because "ethnist" sounds dumb.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit, I did consider Dag's comment, as well as "what if <insert other color here> did it" commentary.
But you know what - at this point I'd rather err on the side of caution. It's the same reason why I bothered the new parents of triplets regarding a drunk passed out in a car in front of their door on New Year's Eve.
I frankly would rather sleep at night knowing I did or at least tried to do the right thing instead of being up all night wondering what if.
posted
I think it is cool that you are worried about your perceptions. That is one of the real costs of this war on terrorism...the suspicion and such of fellow neighbors. We are going to suspect anything that a) seems unusual NOW and/or b) involves someone who looks middle eastern. We will analyze and overanalyze to death these types of situations. We will think to ourselves "Oh my god, he is scouting for a rocket attack!" which could be true. On the other hand, if they have a surface to air missle, no need to really scout too much. Just a quick drive by during planes taking off will show you the flight path and they are all extremely low at that point. Yet, here we are, second guessing.
It makes it hard to fight such an enemy that we THINK we know on sight. I mean, were people suspicious of all white guys (meaning, people who didn't already look suspciously at white guys) after the second most deadly terrorist attack on the US a few years before? No, because that would be ludicrous.
This is a painful part of this "war on terror." Probably as painful as an attack, though in different ways. I bemoan the loss of those thousands of people's lives, but as noted numerous times before, 10 times that amount are lost each year in car accidents and I hardly ever pause in thought towards those deaths. The bigger impact is that those lives were lost and the world is worse because of it. We are more fearful, more distrustful, more hateful towards one another and so on (Dan_raven...not saying you were hateful...saying that as a society, I see that more...you just sounded uncomfortable and scared). That to me is the saddest cost. I hope we grow past it as time goes on.
posted
Here's a question ... if it were possible to know, just by glancing someone, that they held a citizenship in a terrorist-sponsoring state, would that be legitimate cause to hold them to a higher level of suspicion than someone who, at a glance, could be recognized as a lifelong American citizen?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me expand on my earlier response a little. In this case, you have the possible but remote chance this guy was taking pictures to help plan a terrorist attack. If an attack happens there and you've done nothing, you'll second guess yourself the rest of your life. If you call, no one is going to get visited by the secret police or wind up on a list somewhere.
If you were considering giving the police a name, you'd have a lot more balancing to consider. Here, the lack of identifiable harm for action weighed against the very small potential for significant benefit makes it pretty easy to me.
posted
I think it's sad that we are desensitized to any massive cause of deaths.
But I wouldn't call the police because I don't trust them. Which is odd because I used to want to be the police. For starters, many of them seem a little foggy on the actual content of the law. Why should they? They aren't lawyers. Their job is to keep things normal and if that means lying about the law to someone who may not know better, so be it. I've seen this twice in my own life, and it also appears to be the case in my link.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as their are train spotters, there are aircraft spotters. So there is nothing particularly unusual about running across people photographing take-offs and landings.
However, the Department of Homeland"Security" is interested in interviewing them. And local police do check them out: last incident that I'm aware of involved whites being interrogated in Texas by local police.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me tell you a story. My cousin went to visit U.S.A. on september 2002. He's brazilian, and none in our family has even a remote arab ancestry. The problem is: because of his looks, he could be easily taken as an arab. So, there he was, walking around Washington D.C. with a camera, taking a lot of pictures. He mananged to be stopped and questioned by police officers three times in four hours. He had to show them his papers and tell them where he came from. He solved the problem in a very simple way: he took from his bag a brazilian soccer team shirt and put it on. After that, nobody bothered him, and some people even shaked hands with him saying they liked brazilian soccer a lot :-)
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think people are desensitized to large groups of people dying...but the fact is, large groups of people die daily for all sorts of reasons, many within our control. Oddly enough, it is the ones we have the least control over that we fret over the most.
With terrorism, they have already "won" the war if we engage in it. The overall point of terrorism is to cause terror. We live in fear of it now daily. We are considering as a nation significantly changing how we do things with voting because of it. There is an amendment this year (no, not THAT one) that will allow for rapid replacment of Congressional membership if more than 1/4 are killed in a terrorist attack! Even though there are currently ways to do this in each state when someone dies. I don't think the world will stop if (gasp) Congress is not in session for a while. Hell, a little bit of white powder scares them out of their hole for a while. Yet we are willing to edit the document that really should resist being edited because of terrorism...
Ugh. Sickens me. I don't want to become a terrorist state where that is all we do is react like terrorists want us to act. It costs a terrorist organization very little to do what they are doing to our country. I know there is a price, but they could post "threating information" in various venues to be intercepted. Threaten to disrupt elections? They change how they do elections. I think as long as we choose to live this way, the "War on Terror" will never be over.
It is like declaring a "War on Love" or other emotion. They don't go away by declaring war on it and terrorism isn't a country, a place, a group of people or whatever. It is a method of making people change that has had reasonable success since people have kept records. How do you "defeat" that?
posted
Feel free to say that you wouldn't call the police if it helps you feel better.
Then call the police.
This is not optional, this is not a matter of conscience. This is a matter of danger to life. You can take chances with your own life all you want, you cannot take chances with the lives of others. If that makes you feel bad, good for you. If that makes you feel great, I don't like you much. But either way, I don't particularly care how you feel, provided you make the phone call.
I'm in New York, there are still, miserably, plenty of silly people here that are desperate to say that they would never ever ever look at an arabic fellow the wrong way.
How nice.
Let me share something with you. My younger brother works with a volunteer paramedic service. When the towers went down he got in his car and sped over there. He was allowed to cross the bridge because of his paramedic status. A few days later I asked him what happened, were people OK, was it tough?
His reply will permanently stay with me. He gave me this grim, bitter smile, and said "there wasn't anything to do Ron, they were all dead."
That sums it up. Feel free to agonize, then pick up the phone and call.
And yes, if I saw anyone of a different ethnicity taking pictures I'd call. It would make absolutely no difference.
Ah. You speak as if there is some absolute metric by which any violation of civil liberty or affront to humanity can be justified if the intent of the action is to possibly save life. But clearly this is not the case; I doubt, for example, that even you would countenance locking up every person of Arabic descent in this country and banning all immigration of any kind because, in theory, Arabic immigrants are more likely to try to kill us. (I'll leave aside for a moment the obvious point that terrorism is hardly a leading or even troublesome cause of death in America, even deliberately-inflicted death, and will just work with the assumption that we're more concerned about Islamic terrorists than carjackers.)
So if we can't justify locking up all the Arabs, even though it would make terrorism less likely, clearly there is SOME point at which the cost of security outweighs the benefit of that security. Dan, in this thread, appears to be trying to find that point; is inconveniencing a stranger and your local police force worth it if the man you turn in is, in fact, gathering information on a spy network? And if he isn't, is the inconvenience mild enough that you can live with the consequences?
I suspect that the answer to this question, when applied to different circumstances, will be different for each individual; it's hardly as clear-cut as "Might it save lives? Then do it!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I absolutely will not split hairs with you.
I am not going to engage in "the party of the first part agrees with the party of the second part to see to it that there is a house party in the first residence of the party of the first part to etc." type of dialogue.
Either you are capable of understanding basic common sense. Or you are not. You are under the impression that I do not comprehend the meaning of the phrase "within reason". I assure you, I do.
There are many people in New York who to this day will whine and complain about how the government isn't "doing enough" and then if you ask them if they are willing to see the government do the only things it reasonably can to have prevented 9/11, they will respond "of course not that would be a sin."
There was a train blown to bits in Madrid. There are constant predictions of an attack here. What has changed? Not a thing. The Boston police department has lately implemented a policy of randomly searching train passengers. This is because every 5th passenger is a likely suspect. Despite the weak nature of the searches, several Boston legal teams have decided to file (is that the word?) motions against this practice.
No person of middle eastern descent may be "profiled". Let me make this clearer - the airlines themselves are point blank forbidden to profile anyone who boards their own planes.
With the grace of G-d, our handcuffed law-enforcement will be able to rely on miracles and prevent another attack. I pray that is so.
Personally, if I have a choice, I will fly El-Al. They seem to comprehend the importance of life.
posted
You know, Ron, you'd get far more mileage out of your persuasion if you dropped the self-righteous, utterly certain, and insulting tone. Implying that people who disagree with you are weak-willed lackwits is no way to get them to agree with you.
Especially since neither Tom nor Dan are weak-willed OR lackwits. The bar for those words are much higher than not sharing your opinion on this issue.
And I say that as someone who thinks that law-enforcement and intelligence agencies ARE very often handcuffed for political reasons.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it that all people named Ron who post on this board share, um, certain characteristics?
Olivia, promise me that you'll keep your husband away from Hatrack, for his own sake.
------
"You are under the impression that I do not comprehend the meaning of the phrase 'within reason.' I assure you, I do."
Ron, you may want to concede the fact that two perfectly reasonable people, each possessed of the same information, may reach different conclusions about what is, in fact, "within reason."
posted
That's pretty name-ist of you, Tom. You should watch the uppity, self-righteous tone and ask yourself if you want to live in fear of all Internet Rons for the rest of your life. You can't lock them all away, you know. There has to be a line somewhere, perhaps you should investigate where that line is?
As an aside, I agree with you on every level. You set the day of the Ron Hunt and I'll be right there by your side.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
fil, I think I've observed before that "war on (cancer, crime, drugs)" is not a good way to go with the terror. Since we haven't really won any of those wars.
That said, I do think there is a difference between being terrorized and being aware. I'd say the terrorists have won when we cease to be America because of what they have done to us. That is the concern in racial profiling and privacy invasions.
Taking pictures of airplanes taking off doesn't seem weird to me. I've done it myself, albeit years ago and at night. So for me, personally, that doesn't stick out as anything unusual. For Dan it apparently does.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan I don't know what these guy are talking about and I skipped to the end after the first few, don't worry you're not rascist and the guy is not a terrorist, and even if he was there's nothing moral or remotely right that can be done against him because some guy saw him taking pictures.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people enjoy watching aircraft. Due to the open nature of our society we are bound to allow this. Not everyone is so lucky! Remember last year Greece found a number of British plane spotters guilty of spying for making notes of which aircraft were taking off and landing at one of their military fields. They were later aquitted on appeal.
You might find this site run by plane spotters at RAF Lakenheath, UK, (where I fly) interesting. We jokingly refer to it as the "Stalker Site" because it seems like they often know more about what were doing than we do!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
