foulshot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2001
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
0
Fri Jul 16, 2:49 AM ET
By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE, Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE - Ian Spiers had just hours to finish an assignment for his photography class. He was taking shots of a railroad bridge near the Ballard Locks when an officer with a German shepherd approached him, asked him what he was doing and requested some ID.

Later, he was questioned and photographed by a Homeland Security agent.
capt.waet10207160352.photographer_questioned_waet102.jpg
AP Photo
It was the second time in less than two months that Spiers had been questioned about taking pictures of a landmark that attracts hundreds of tourists a day, many of whom snap photos of the ships passing between Lake Union and Elliott Bay.


A growing number of photographers around the country have been similarly rousted in recent years as they've tried to take pictures of federal buildings and other major public works, said Donald Winslow, editor of the National Press Photographers Association's magazine.


"We've seen the constant erosion of our civil liberties amid this cry for homeland security by doing things that have an appearance of making us safe, but in reality it's a sham," Winslow said. "No one showed up at the World Trade Center and took photographs from nine different angles before they flew planes into it."


The morning of May 26, Spiers explained he was a photography student at a community college, showed a copy of his assignment, then asked the officer if he was legally obligated to show his ID.


The officer said no and walked away. But soon after, several armed officers approached him, including three from the Seattle Police Department and three from the federal Homeland Security Department.


"I was trying to be calm, but the truth was I was scared out of my mind," Spiers said.


This time, Spiers said, a Seattle police officer told him he had no choice but to show his ID. A Homeland Security agent who flashed his badge told him he had broken a law by taking pictures of a federal facility.


"We've never seen such a law," said Doug Honig, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) in Seattle.


Spiers said he complied, spent half an hour answering questions and let a Homeland Security agent photograph him — after being told he had no choice.


The ACLU has written the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which owns and runs the locks, asking for the agency's assurance that Spiers will not be arrested if he returns there.


Corps spokeswoman Patricia Graesser said her agency had no involvement in the incident and questioned an order Spiers said a homeland security agent gave him — that he could not return to the locks with his camera without getting permission in advance.


"Everyone — all members of the public — are welcome on the locks property, and photographs are allowed, and there's no need to get prior permission," she said.


Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb said the department has a duty to respond to reports of suspicious activity.


Calls to the Homeland Security Department were not immediately returned.


In an interview with The Associated Press, Spiers kept his distance from the spot where he was questioned, and wore a button on his camera bag that said: "Annoying but harmless photography student. Do not bend." He made it in early April, after two police officers showed up at his door, saying they were responding to a report about a suspicious man taking pictures at the locks.





Spiers said he'd like to hear one of the officers who questioned him say if they hassled him because his mocha-colored skin and short black hair made him look like a terrorist.

"I'm trying to figure out how not to attract attention," said Spiers, 36. "So far the only thing I can think of is that I can never ever pick up a camera."

In early June, about 100 photographers crowded onto New York City subway trains and snapped pictures of each other in protest of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (news - web sites)'s proposed ban on photography in subways and other public transit.

And Brian Fitzgerald, the chief photographer at the Yakima Herald-Republic, said a uniformed security officer tried to prevent him from taking a picture of an immigration office, citing a "law," then calling it a "directive" that gave the officer the right to confiscate any film with pictures of a federal facility.

An officer in charge eventually let him take his photos, and he's since been told there's no reason he can't take them.

"It's frustrating mostly," Fitzgerald said. "I'm not outraged because I didn't get to the point where I didn't get my photos. It just reminds me again how much disinformation there is, even in these agencies that are supposed to know."
 

TNhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2001
Messages
99
Reaction score
1
Many people and many things that weren't suspicious prior to 9/11 are now so. You can thank those that hijacked those planes for that. Better to be safe than sorry. I can guarantee you I'm more aware of things going on around me in public now than I was prior to 9/11.
 

g-hog

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
0
I gotta agree, at times it may seem like they have gone overboard , but it's like you stated better safe than sorry. It is a major pane now flying but I sure feel a little safer knowing at least they made an attempt to do a search.

I do feel sorry for this guy though it has to be frustrating for him

GHog
 

shadow

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
0
And the terrorist have one...everyone is now living in so much fear that that you can't even take a picture of a facility that is paid for by your tax dollars without being harrased or having your film confiscated etc...

Since 9/11 just look at how much freedom we gave up to feel safer. Everyone is basically saying , if it will make me safer than I don't mind search without probable cause or that I can't take a picture of the white house while on vacation...

I agree about being a bit more aware but there has to be a line to where the government can't restrict you from doing something in the public like take a picture. I mean come on folks.
<
 

TNhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2001
Messages
99
Reaction score
1
Originally posted by shadow@Jul 17 2004, 07:01 PM
And the terrorist have one...everyone is now living in so much fear that that you can't even take a picture of a facility that is paid for by your tax dollars without being harrased or having your film confiscated etc...

Since 9/11 just look at how much freedom we gave up to feel safer. Everyone is basically saying , if it will make me safer than I don't mind search without probable cause or that I can't take a picture of the white house while on vacation...

I agree about being a bit more aware but there has to be a line to where the government can't restrict you from doing something in the public like take a picture. I mean come on folks.
<
I don't think they were trying to restrict his taking of pictures and I don't believe he had any of his rights treaded on. I believe in this situation there was a law enforcement official asking this dude some questions and he became combatant with them like not giving them his ID or wanting to ID himself to them. I don't think the terrorist have won. Today I feel no less safe or any more terrorized by these islamic jihadist thugs than ever before. I can't name one single right I had 4 years ago that I don't have today. I'm not looking for the feds or LEO to come save me or protect me. They do however have that as part of their jobs. I skum bags like this dude want to make their jobs and lives more of a hassle they deserve to be hassled themselves.
 

YH88

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
1
Originally posted by TNhunter@Jul 19 2004, 03:11 PM
I don't think the terrorist have won.
Yeah they did. Not fear wise, but money wise. Evertime we 'think' or have 'credible informaton' we raise the terror alert, which costs us money. Eventually, we will go under. Every great empire has its fall.
 

TNhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2001
Messages
99
Reaction score
1
I guess since we've lost we should just bring SadDAMN Hussein over here and prop him up as our dictator then.
 

YH88

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2002
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
1
Originally posted by TNhunter@Jul 21 2004, 09:27 PM
I guess since we've lost we should just bring SadDAMN Hussein over here and prop him up as our dictator then.
No no no.. We should torture him to death.
<
 

Latest Posts

QRCode

QR Code
Top Bottom