How to Spot Citizen Terrorists

Originally posted by D8ncer
Firstly, Merry Christmas.

Just having an early morning coffee and went on to a few news channels this morning to see what's happening in the world and come across this article. At times you couldnt make it up.

Do you own flashlights? Or pay with cash instead of a credit card? And do grocery shopping for the week? I do. You probably do – and guess what, according to the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, that could make both of us terrorists.

RT News

edit on 25-12-2011 by D8ncer because: (no reason given)

It's probably not a coincidence that activities that make someone more self-sufficient and less dependent on the governement are being labeled "terrorist" activities. This is the same reason farmers, ranchers and off-the-grid people are targeted.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Also god forbid if you excercise your 1st amendment rights. Like for example take photographs in public.

First of all the "fathers" probably hadn't heard of photography.

Secondly the text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
EDIT: adopted on December 15, 1791

No mention of photography invented in 1827.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher
it is most likely the same one that said frosting on a cup cake was a threat, or the one that thinks 5 year old's that are afraid of getting felt up by ones that wear badges is a threat, or maybe the one that thinks you taking pictures or a park tree or old building is a threat, or it is DHS TSA or then The FBI could be behind it what to look for and how to spot possible terrorist oathkeepers.org...

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Also god forbid if you excercise your 1st amendment rights. Like for example take photographs in public.

First of all the "fathers" probably hadn't heard of photography.

Secondly the text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
EDIT: adopted on December 15, 1791

No mention of photography invented in 1827.

edit on 26.12.2011 by HolgerTheDane because: (no reason given)

So Hogler, being the Devil's advocate, the fathers didn't think of TV, so how does that fall into the context of the Constitution? The Internet? Radio?

Help me out here, take the next step.

Derek

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


seriously? So in your opinion photography is not speech? Ok well meanwhile in the real world it is. Look it up

reply to post by Viesczy


Back when it was conceived the top and only information medium was the newspaper and with the invention of photography (1827), telephone (1876), radio (1872), phonogram (1877), television (1947), computer (1949) and the internet (concept 1971 and application 1988) each of which has since been factored and grandfathered into The Constitution to apply! The next major information medium to launch probably this or next decade that tech will be grandfathered in as well as well as all future information mediums! The laptop, cell phone smartphones, internet tablets are all covered under the internet!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by HolgerTheDane

 

seriously? So in your opinion photography is not speech? Ok well meanwhile in the real world it is. Look it up

To be honest I have a problem with the concept of free speech, which for me basically means that I can say (or in other ways convey) my opinions.

Taking pictures is basically not speech until they are used to convey a message. Therefore taking a picture in a public place does not constitute free speech but rather information gathering which is protected (blocked) in so many other ways.

EDIT:
Perhaps you would know that buying a set of crayons isn't part of free speech until you draw or write with them. And those crayons could easily be banned because the chinese have forgotten to remove the toxins from them.

Originally posted by Viesczy

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Also god forbid if you excercise your 1st amendment rights. Like for example take photographs in public.

First of all the "fathers" probably hadn't heard of photography.

Secondly the text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
EDIT: adopted on December 15, 1791

No mention of photography invented in 1827.

edit on 26.12.2011 by HolgerTheDane because: (no reason given)

So Holger, being the Devil's advocate, the fathers didn't think of TV, so how does that fall into the context of the Constitution? The Internet? Radio?

Help me out here, take the next step.

Derek

I'd love to help you, but you fail to understand my post. Being the devil's advocate it perhaps on purpose.


Radio, TV, Internet etc. is a medium with which you convey a message.
Using a picture to convey a message falls under the free speech (unless it is something like child porn etc.)

Taking a picture is not conveying a message. It is gathering information as a prelude to exercising your free speech, and sometimes this information gathering is not allowed.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


Speech isn't just speech in 1st amendment. It's a freedom of expression. You cannot block someone from taking pictures and therefore prevent them to use those in their expression. Photography has been 1st amendment right for ages and still is.

I'd like to play the devil's advocate as well.

Had you been more vigilant all those years ago, you would have picked up on Japanese visitors who photographed in places where they shouldn't. Pearl Harbour might never have happened.

Had the Norwegian people been more vigilant they might have been able to stop Breivik when he was "information gathering".

Had they been more vigilant in England the London Underground bombing might have been avoided.

Had you been more vigilant you might have wondered why some clearly "non Americans" were so keen on learning how to fly big planes and didn't bother much with landing practice.

However ...

The price for not wanting to impose on our right to take pictures and go where the he** we want is that we stop bitching when it goes wrong and accept that a couple of hundred casualties are acceptable.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by HolgerTheDane

 

Speech isn't just speech in 1st amendment. It's a freedom of expression. You cannot block someone from taking pictures and therefore prevent them to use those in their expression. Photography has been 1st amendment right for ages and still is.

But you can stop me from taking pictures of naked children on the beach?

Nope actually you cant. So what's your point?

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
I'd like to play the devil's advocate as well.

Had you been more vigilant all those years ago, you would have picked up on Japanese visitors who photographed in places where they shouldn't. Pearl Harbour might never have happened.

Had the Norwegian people been more vigilant they might have been able to stop Breivik when he was "information gathering".

Had they been more vigilant in England the London Underground bombing might have been avoided.

Had you been more vigilant you might have wondered why some clearly "non Americans" were so keen on learning how to fly big planes and didn't bother much with landing practice.

However ...

The price for not wanting to impose on our right to take pictures and go where the he** we want is that we stop bitching when it goes wrong and accept that a couple of hundred casualties are acceptable.

Hogler, I'll bite... using the "it is for your safety that we're going to suspend or suppress liberty" is just another form of tyranny.

Pearl Harbon would've still been bombed, you don't think that spies would've been stopped do you? Spies are great at spying.

Breivik did what he did because he is a nut and would've carried out his act no matter what. Personally he should be Wheeled. I'll gladly help with that if help is needed.

About the planes and what appears to be a 9.11 reference, I'm not sure how that relates to freedom of expression and you don't really believe that the buildings came down but passports were found that allowed us to ID the terrorists?

You are right though, in the name of liberty everyone should be willing to sacrifice their life. The choice between living on your knees or dying with a weapon in hand is no choice at all. Sadly in America FAR too many will parrot these words but when it comes time for personal risk or sacrifice their disgusting craven true nature is shown.

Derek

I finally found the manual I was looking for :

Front of brochure :
whatreallyhappened.com...

Inlay of brochure :
whatreallyhappened.com...