Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Deputy snapped protest pictures - (Two officers, infiltrate anti-Bush demonstrators)
Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 4/26/06 | Michael Fisher

Posted on 04/26/2006 8:55:46 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

As dozens of anti-war demonstrators heckled President Bush outside an Indian Wells resort last weekend, a plainclothes Riverside County sheriff's deputy and another man moved through the crowd, the deputy waving a protest sign as the two snapped digital photographs of the demonstrators.

Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle said that the U.S. Secret Service asked that members of his department's intelligence unit monitor the protest. Any photos taken Saturday of the protesters were snapped "under the auspices of the Secret Service," Doyle said.

But Eric Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., said the agency did not make such requests.

"We did not request nor receive any photos of any protesters, nor anybody else, which would be contrary to our policy," Zahren said by phone Tuesday. "We did not make any specific request for them to infiltrate the protest areas nor to take photos."

On Monday, Doyle said the photos were turned over to the Secret Service. "We wouldn't keep any of them. Any photos would go to them," Doyle said.

However, Doyle said through a spokesman Tuesday that the pictures were not given to the Secret Service because no "incidents" occurred at the demonstration. Instead, the pictures were deleted and are not being maintained in files or elsewhere, said spokesman Sgt. Earl Quinata.

Officials with the California Attorney General's Office and civil-rights groups said it is legal for peace officers to photograph demonstrators in a public venue, but there are restrictions on whether those snapshots can be cataloged or maintained.

Zahren could not confirm or deny whether the man accompanying the plainclothes deputy was a Secret Service agent. He cited agency policies barring the discussion of security measures for the president.

Quinata on Tuesday described the second man only as a federal agent. Quinata emphasized that only one deputy moved among demonstrators.

The two men, dressed casually, did not appear to identify themselves as peace officers to the protesters. When a cluster of demonstrators became raucous or, in one instance, surrounded a pair of Bush supporters to drown out their cheers, the two men moved in close, taking pictures.

One of the men sometimes posed for pictures next to protesters. Doyle said Monday that he "wasn't at liberty" to discuss specifics of the Secret Service request.

Federal agents may have had information that someone at the protest posed a threat to the president, Doyle said, or that someone intended to incite violence among the demonstrators.

"It's not a common practice," Doyle said of the surreptitious monitoring and photographs. "Our role in this specific event was in support of the Secret Service."

Doyle said he could not remember the last time his office deployed undercover deputies at a demonstration. He said plainclothes deputies were not deployed at the recent immigration rallies, or when Bush attended a fundraiser in Riverside in October 2003.

Deputy Carried Sign

No violence or arrests occurred at Saturday's two-hour demonstration outside the Toscana Country Club in Indian Wells, where the president spoke at a Republican fundraiser. Protesters waved signs and chanted from behind yellow police tape stretched along a grassy area on Fred Waring Drive, across the street from the Toscana's entry gates.

During the protest, uniformed sheriff's deputies and plainclothes law-enforcement officers stood watch on the other side of the yellow tape as the undercover deputy and the other man wandered among the crowd. The undercover deputy carried a sign distributed by Comité Latino, a Coachella Valley immigration advocacy group formed this year.

Doyle said the goal would be for the undercover peace officers to blend in with protesters.

Maria Bautista, a volunteer with Comité Latino, said Tuesday that several members of the group felt uncomfortable knowing that they had been watched at the demonstration.

"That tells us that we don't really have freedom of expression," said Bautista, adding that some members worry that the photos were not destroyed. "We feel like they acted as spies."

Demonstrator Keith Barrie, a member of the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club, was not surprised to hear officers were among the protestors, taking photos.

"We're pretty familiar with this type of activity," said Barrie, who said he has attended protests for 17 years. "It's offensive that they do it systematically. They were not inside (the fundraiser) taking photos of the people who were at that dinner."

Several government surveillance programs came to the public's attention last year amid news reports that federal authorities were eavesdropping on some international phone calls and efforts by authorities to secretly monitor radiation levels at mosques and Muslim-affiliated buildings in six U.S. cities.

Undercover New York police have infiltrated political-protest groups in that city, according to the New York Times.

No Expectation of Privacy

Authorities and some civil-rights groups agreed that public protesters can be photographed by authorities or anyone else with a camera.

"You don't have much of an expectation of privacy if you are in a public area," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "When the police are out in public, commingling with the public, there are very few restrictions in terms of what they can do and observe. If however they are going to maintain and keep that information in a database, that's another story."

Under California law, local and state police must have some reasonable information that the person or group is involved in criminal activity to maintain information, such as photos taken at a protest, he explained. They cannot maintain the photos or video simply for curiosity, he said.

However, federal law-enforcement agencies are not subject to the same restrictions, under the federal Patriot Act, Barankin said.

James Lafferty, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, agreed, but was somewhat bemused when told that officers secretly took photos at Saturday's demonstration.

"The notion of doing it surreptitiously strikes me as silly," Lafferty said, who called the strategy "concerning" given that officers can legally take the photos without being secretive.

Such practices, he said, could chill citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights.

On Thursday, two Riverside city police officers attended a boycott organizing meeting of the National Alliance for Human Rights. Both introduced themselves at the outset, just like others in attendance.

"With as many demonstrations, and picketing that I've done, and marches that I've organized, I've never had problems with the police. My strategy has always been to include them," said alliance coordinator Armando Navarro.

"Sometimes they're kind of surreptitious."

Navarro said human-rights movements in the 1960s were often infiltrated by FBI or police spies who would provoke violence.

"The intent was to character-assassinate the efforts of the movement leaders by creating situations that did not play well in the public," Navarro said.

Staff writer Sharon McNary and the Associated Press contributed to this report.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: aclu; antibush; california; demonstrators; deputy; fbi; indianwells; infiltrate; pictures; protest; snapped
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 04/26/2006 8:55:49 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Each of those lemmings is frightened.


2 posted on 04/26/2006 8:58:58 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alia

And so should all Americans be frightened by these communist tactics. We don't do this in the US!


3 posted on 04/26/2006 9:00:53 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

So are they taking pictures of the criminal illegal aliens showing their faces with their non-stop demonstrating?

Will they take pix and videos of the illegal aliens on communist May 1 day demonstration while they are shutting down our ports, nothing important?

I'm just asking.


4 posted on 04/26/2006 9:01:10 AM PDT by stopem (To allow a bunch of third world country nationals to divide Americans is unconscionable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Such practices, he said, could chill citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Or openly break the law by rioting and exersizing other such "rights"

5 posted on 04/26/2006 9:04:18 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stopem

I sure hope so,, face recognition software/technology has come a long way..


6 posted on 04/26/2006 9:04:55 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
We don't do this in the US!

We don't? I just spent 2 of the past 3 weeks having the ACLU take me picture and writing down my license plate number.AWB

7 posted on 04/26/2006 9:06:46 AM PDT by Americanwolfsbrother (Minutemen, Muster Up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
If we were not at war, you might have a sensible argument.

We are in a war.

People with criminal intent tend to appear in crowds such as these anti-war protestors.

These guys in blue might just be protecting these anti-war-protestors from taking the rap for THOSE IN THESE CROWDS ABOUT TO SET OFF BOMBS, DESTROY PROPERTY, AD NAUSEUM.

Freedom really can CUT both ways.

8 posted on 04/26/2006 9:07:27 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

As well they should. What's good for the goose as they say.


9 posted on 04/26/2006 9:07:34 AM PDT by stopem (To allow a bunch of third world country nationals to divide Americans is unconscionable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Each of those lemmings is frightened.

Lemmings are never frightened. They don't know they're lemmings.

That's the beauty of it...

10 posted on 04/26/2006 9:10:48 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Bautista: "We feel they were acting like spies." No lady, they were photographing potential spies.
11 posted on 04/26/2006 9:11:37 AM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This sort of Big Brother crap only lends undeserved credibility to the leftie moonbats, and should be stopped for that reason alone.

(A more basic reason, obviously, is that such things have no place in a free republic.)

12 posted on 04/26/2006 9:12:29 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
ROFL!!!

And lest we forget their theme song... "Paranoia strikes deep... into your hearts it will creep... it starts when you're always afraid..."

13 posted on 04/26/2006 9:12:48 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Oh, puh-leeze. That is EXACTLY the "reasoning" used by Bill Clinton to tie the OKC bombing to "right-wing hate radio".
14 posted on 04/26/2006 9:13:56 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Noooo. It's not.


15 posted on 04/26/2006 9:19:40 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Back in the 60's and 70's, my salad days, when I did most of my demonstrating, it was ALWAYS with the expectation of being, at the very least, photographed. It just goes with the territory----and that was waaaaay before 9/11!
16 posted on 04/26/2006 9:20:37 AM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd

"And so should all Americans be frightened by these communist tactics. We don't do this in the US!"

Pullleeezzzzz......

1. These "tactics" are not exclusive to "communists" but rather used by government all over the world.. from facists to Islamist to democratic republics. Your use of the term "communist" suggests that your argument is so weak that you have to hurl that term as an "insult".

2. There is no expectation of privacy at a protest. None. In fact, you WANT the gov't to know that you are unhappy.

3. This would allow police to accurately identify wrong-doers. What is wrong with that?

There is absolutely NO idea that the gov't will use this to "target" protesters, a la FBI under J.E Hoover.


17 posted on 04/26/2006 9:25:09 AM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alia
We are in a war.

Then declare war. Mobilize the economy, reinstate the draft and get the job done as quickly as possible. But don't use it as a rhetorical device to permit things that normally aren't permitted, then back away from it when it's convenient to you.

People with criminal intent tend to appear in crowds such as these anti-war protestors.

Example?

Simple question. If Democrats controlled the White House and there was a freep protest of whatever policy, would you be happy that the police were there taking your picture?

18 posted on 04/26/2006 9:28:33 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd

A picture is worth a thousand words.


19 posted on 04/26/2006 9:34:56 AM PDT by TaxRelief (Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Americanwolfsbrother

The ACLU is not a government agency.


20 posted on 04/26/2006 9:36:29 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd

" Great Britain has installed more than 1.5 million video cameras in public places in response to domestic attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-07-22-ncguest11_x.htm

It doesn't stop the Brits from being the most vivacious protestors on the face of the earth.


21 posted on 04/26/2006 9:40:52 AM PDT by TaxRelief (Wal-Mart: Keeping my family on-budget since 1993.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Americanwolfsbrother
What's AWB?
If I had to "know" every freakin' acronym used in the world, I would have time to do nothing else.

Out of common courtesy, and for the sake of clarity of communications, I never use acronyms when speaking in a general forum like this one, certainly never outside of my technical "tribe".

22 posted on 04/26/2006 9:42:42 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

"Great Britain has installed more than 1.5 million video cameras in public places in response to domestic attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day."

It's only a matter of time before such are WIDELY used here in the USA.

In fact, some cities, notably Washington DC, have already installed robotic cops that send you a speeding ticket when it clocks you breaking the speed limit.


23 posted on 04/26/2006 9:43:30 AM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
Perhaps not happy, but never surprised. When you "protest" your image is up for grabs---be it government or the ACLU, etc. It's a risk you take, knowingly.
24 posted on 04/26/2006 9:46:35 AM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
"1. These "tactics" are not exclusive to "communists" but rather used by government all over the world.. from facists to Islamist to democratic republics. Your use of the term "communist" suggests that your argument is so weak that you have to hurl that term as an "insult"."

Never thought I'd see FReepers defending communists tactics, and yes that's what this is, on this site. By your reasoning there's no problem with identifying the people in the photos and running an FBI check on them. I mean why else would you take the photos if you weren't going to try to identify the people? You'd make a good little communist. Hillary and Putin would be proud to have you as their comrade.

25 posted on 04/26/2006 9:49:35 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom

"When you "protest" your image is up for grabs---be it government or the ACLU, etc. It's a risk you take, knowingly."

Isn't that the idea? To let people know that you're unhappy about something, and are willing to risk repercussions for speaking out? If you're not willing to be known in a public way, then why bother?

And the protesters, at least those who understand protest, would love nothing better than to clog up the government with work in as they prosecute / persecute the protestors. They know that if the government finds it more expensive to repress the protesters than to address the grievance then the grievance might be addressed.

Finally, there are always the psychotic nut cases who need to be violent and destructive. Those people really do need to be put in jail.


26 posted on 04/26/2006 9:51:56 AM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
" reinstate the draft "

I see. Thank you for sharing.

27 posted on 04/26/2006 9:52:30 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
They tell the press that "hundreds" will show up at their whining sessions. The press arives to find a dozen people, half of which are cops.

funny stuff.

28 posted on 04/26/2006 9:53:01 AM PDT by ChadGore (VISUALIZE 62,041,268 Bush fans. We Vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
By your reasoning there's no problem with identifying the people in the photos and running an FBI check on them. I mean why else would you take the photos if you weren't going to try to identify the people?

Right. Maybe the poor little protesters got their feelings hurt by having their picture taken. Oops, forgot they were there for the press photographers and TV. Awe too bad if we catch a few terrorists in their midsts (not to say traitors).

/Sarcasm off

29 posted on 04/26/2006 9:53:32 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom
"Perhaps not happy, but never surprised. When you "protest" your image is up for grabs---be it government or the ACLU, etc. It's a risk you take, knowingly."

The ACLU doesn't have access to your tax records, FBI files, military records, telephone records, or computer accounts. The government does.

30 posted on 04/26/2006 9:54:22 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd

"Never thought I'd see FReepers defending communists tactics, and yes that's what this is, on this site."

As I pointed out (did you even read what I said?) the term "communist" is an inflammatory term that is at once inaccurate as well as indescriptive.

As I pointed out, those tactics are not "communist". They might be used by commies, but they are not, strictly speaking, "communist." In fact, they are used by every type of government in the world. The commies, for instance, breathe air; do you say that breathing is a "commie" thing?

No, you used that term in order to poison us against the action, leading me to believe that you cannot articulate your agrument in more substantial ways. You don't cite First Amendment case law, nor do you tell me how the government might misuse this info.

"By your reasoning there's no problem with identifying the people in the photos and running an FBI check on them. I mean why else would you take the photos if you weren't going to try to identify the people?"

Isn't that what the protesters want? I mean, if I don't want the government to know that I'm unhappy then why would I openly protest?

And as I pointed out in another post, the protesters WANT the FBI (et al) to spend time and energy and money on them, believing that if the cost of the protesters is greater than the cost of change, then change will occur.

So, why not give them what they want?

"You'd make a good little communist. Hillary and Putin would be proud to have you as their comrade."

Again, cheap ad hominim attacks that convey little in the way of logic. I think that you'd be awfully boring over drinks discussing politics, unless we just get off on calling everyone we don't like commie pink fags.


31 posted on 04/26/2006 9:59:39 AM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
There is a video somewhere on the Internet that shows a young black girl, with her face covered like a Palestinian fighter, at an ant-war rally. When the frames in the video were captured, and the angle of the camera drawn back and expanded to show a wider shot, it shows that the girl is one of many being led by an Asian woman in a black, Commie slogan T-shirt, holding a bullhorn and organizing the kids into what appeared on front pages of national papers as a dramatic "caught on tape" moment.
Looking at all the frames reveals that this was a carefully organized shot. Does anyone else remember seeing this?

Otherwise, do I care if some pantywaist protester named Keith, who has had nothing better to do for the last 17 yrs. than get out in the streets and bellow his opinions, gets his picture taken by LEO? No. Absolutely not.
Wiretapping? If someone is calling the Osama Cave HQ, and talking in code to an AQ customer service rep, Yes. Absolutely. I want the gov't to protect me. The revelations re McCarthy/Priest prove that there are people here, American citizens, who want to destroy us, too.

I don't see the ACLU protecting my right to be safe from a terrorist attack. I see them trying to hamstring the LEO, and trying to take away the tools necessary to protect American citizens.
32 posted on 04/26/2006 10:02:13 AM PDT by ishabibble (UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
"Right. Maybe the poor little protesters got their feelings hurt by having their picture taken."

So you wouldn't have a problem if abortion protesters had government agents take their photos outside of an abortion clinic? Of course the photos would be turned over to the FBI, you know because religious freaks bomb clinics. So it's just a precautionary measure they're taking when they review their IRS records, bank accounts and on-line accounts. Do you see how this can get out of hand? Or do you agree with Hillary's review of the FBI files?

33 posted on 04/26/2006 10:02:15 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

If the hammer and sickle fit...


34 posted on 04/26/2006 10:04:50 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alia
I see. Thank you for sharing.

Hey, if we're at war, let's fight a war. And that means massive mobilization. Personally, I don't think we are at war. We're in a conflict that doesn't require a draft and doesn't require massive economic mobilization.

You're the one who wants to call it a war when it's rhetorically convenient to excuse something, but doesn't want to actually fight it like one.

35 posted on 04/26/2006 10:13:46 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
And so should all Americans be frightened by these communist tactics. We don't do this in the US!

Huh???? I have no problem with the feds taking pictures of people at these demostrations. They are in a public venue, publicly protesting. They have ABSOLUTELY NO expectation of privacy here. If you don't want your face associated with this activity, don't show up!

I think the police should have multiple video cameras running at every public event. If there are no problems, good. If there are, then it is just like a dashboard camera, good evidence for court.

36 posted on 04/26/2006 10:19:04 AM PDT by ibheath (Born again and grateful to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

How much are FBI files worth?


37 posted on 04/26/2006 10:19:06 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Just a guess,

AWB = AmericanWolfsBrother

but then,

It could be Average White Band.
38 posted on 04/26/2006 10:22:41 AM PDT by rwfok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
I'm sorry things aren't going your way. Or, as you think it should.

But we are in a war, a war unlike we've ever been in before.

You're the one who wants to call it a war when it's rhetorically convenient to excuse something, but doesn't want to actually fight it like one.

Pot, Kettle, dear.

39 posted on 04/26/2006 10:27:43 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

USSS does countersurveillance, but only when a protectee is involved. They won't reveal themselves to anyone, and won't take any action unless it's warranted. If things get out of hand, they're more likely to truncate an event or some other "passive" reaction, rather than remain in a situation that could spiral out of control.


40 posted on 04/26/2006 10:28:51 AM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ibheath
So exactly why was it wrong for Bill and Hillary to have those FBI files? Please tell me it's not just because they are democrats because I see a lot of RINOs here who'd defend their right to have them.
41 posted on 04/26/2006 10:29:57 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
So you wouldn't have a problem if abortion protesters had government agents take their photos outside of an abortion clinic

You don't think this already happens? Especially in light of abortion clinic bombings?

42 posted on 04/26/2006 10:31:32 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alia

The point I was attempting to make was not whether or not it happens, but whether or not you agree with the tactic of photographing and investigating all who attend the protests.


43 posted on 04/26/2006 10:37:07 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: steve-b; blaquebyrd
Check this out: Flowchart For McCarthy-Priest-Goodfellow-Et Alia

But you two, please do sally forth about the horrid abuse by government of those protesting against the war, borders, traditional families, the United States, our military...

It's obviously very important to you.

44 posted on 04/26/2006 10:37:21 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
Many, many years ago, a pal began asking me some questions. Funny questions. I was clueless. Long story short? He'd seen a picture of me on someone else' body, naked body. Whoever did this, had obviously gotten my headshot some public type of photo with me in it. I wasn't the point of the photo; there were others -- it was being used to sell a product.

When one ventures into public, all sorts of things can happen, that's my point.

We are in a war, and there are traitors in the United States.

If any of those protested and snapped, have a VERY suspicious background -- no I don't mean, marching in a zillion on anti-name-it parades, they will be looked at.

If they've got parking arrests. No. How about delinquent Taxes. No. How about transsexual operation? No.

How about if they have had multiple arrests for arson? Uh, yes. Known agents of the axis of evil? Yesss....

45 posted on 04/26/2006 10:43:41 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd

No, I would photograph trouble-makers and those leading the groups. I would also photograph those doing activities not in synch with the intent of the protest. I would also photograph those with large boxes and small attache's being exchanged.


46 posted on 04/26/2006 10:45:00 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Alia

Come on Alia, sally forth? I served in our military to defend the rights that you so cavalierly want to give up. I've served in countries that have never tasted the freedoms that some of us are willing to give up because it's a republican in the chair now. There won't always be a republican in the chair and the power you so freely give the government now will surely come back to bite you in the ass later. For what it's worth.


47 posted on 04/26/2006 10:45:42 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
investigating all who attend the protests.

Operative word of focus: "all". Do you really think two guys with a camera are going to photograph ALL who attend? This is fantastic lunacy.

48 posted on 04/26/2006 10:47:11 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Alia
I'm sorry things aren't going your way. Or, as you think it should.

On the contrary, I think things are going about right, or as well as can be expected. I've got some issues with the way some things have been handled, but overall, I'm fine. I just don't think we're at war.

But we are in a war, a war unlike we've ever been in before

You calling it one doesn't make it so. A congressional declaration makes it so. We're in low intensity security operations in a Iraq and Afghanistan. We're in an international law enforcement and intelligence operations throughout the world. We're in covert actions. We're in diplomatic negotiations. We're in a cultural debate. We're in a heightened security state in the US. But none of those, individually or together, is a "war" any more than the war on drugs is a war.

Pot, Kettle, dear.

If you're throwing out cliches, I'll say that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want the rhetorical bludgeon of "it's a war" without any of the things that actually go with it.

49 posted on 04/26/2006 10:47:24 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
Thank you for serving.

You still haven't made your point. You are making an extremely weak point. It's along the point of hysteria. And if you think our "local" traitors haven't been doing this stuff all along, then please tell me what happened to make Hillary's mysterious files reappear?

50 posted on 04/26/2006 10:49:51 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson