Six years after the attacks of 9/11, America remains a fearful and hypervigilant nation. When the history of this era is written one day, our grace and composure in the face of tragedy will be remarkably absent, as the following story from The Progressive illustrates:
VA Police Delete Photographs Taken by Muslim-American Journalism Student
Mariam Jukaku is a 24-year-old graduate student in journalism at Syracuse University.
After her photography class on September 6, she started to do her homework, which was to take pictures around campus. She’s a Muslim American, and was wearing brown pants, long sleeves, and a brown scarf.
As she walked on the sidewalk toward her car, she passed the VA hospital, so she tried out her camera, taking pictures of the VA entrance and the flags hanging above it.
“I was there for about five or ten minutes,� says Jukaku, “and I was turning away to leave and a woman in a blue uniform came up to me really fast, and said, ‘You can’t take pictures here,’ in an authoritative, demanding voice. Before I could even get another word in, she said, ‘Give me your camera.’
“I must have said something like, ‘What?’ Because I didn’t even process it, and she said, ‘Give me your camera now!’
“So I gave her my camera, and she was kind of looking at it, and she didn’t know how to work it, and so she said, ‘Set this up so I can look at it.’
“I showed her the playback camera, it’s a digital, and I showed her how to scroll them. She looked at all of them, and then said, ‘Delete these in front of me right now.’ [full text]
It gets worse for Mariam Jukaku. Read on for the full story.
Kmareka.com 
Events sometimes dit=rect our views, and although I have thought about this story for several days, it was the event at Boston’s airport that provoked me to come to some resolution in my own mind. I fall back on the application of two observations, neither of which is particulary unusual, but both of which reflect reality. The first is the obvious; this nation is at war with a buntch of murderous religious loonies who believe that their version of God allows them to murder by any means (bombs, guns, beheadings, etc.) all people, opponent of not. Secondly, it is a long held position that it is wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater (or anywhere else). In a very short period of time one woman felt compelled to take pictures of a Federal facility, “because she wanted to.” Another young woman strapped computer componens and other material looking like platic explosives to her body and entered the airport where terrorists hijacked 9/11 aircraft. Both women received aggressive perusal from security officials and, indeed the women at the airport is fortunate she was not shot on the spot. What is it that these people, and others, do not understand. These are not normal times. There are very bad individuals who wish us harm, have cause massive destruction in our own country and elsewhere and will continue t”o do so until they are stopped. I find rather lame the freedom to take pictures argument.” In a time of war, there is no freedome to take pictures of public facilities. Of course, the young woman had every opportunity to ask officials at the facility if she could take photos under supervision and I suspect, approval would have greeted her. But either she is not the sharpest tack in the shed, and was completely oblivious to the prohibition of taking pictures of federal facilities, or she had some other motive. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and agree she was less than informed. But that does not vitiate the offense. She did cause alarm, and should have beedn redressed.
The silly woman at the airport is lucky to be alive. By all rights, contrived or real, entering a major airport with apparent (real or not) explosives strapped to one’s body requires and indeed received immediate and forceful response. Unfortunatey, hair-brained prank or not, something more than the $750 bail should have greeted her. I find this rather astonishing and sending the wrong message.
In times of war, usual behavior must be modified. This has been the case in every conflict in which we have been involved. To ignore this fact is to ignore reality.
Let me start by saying the woman in the airport deserves what she got. As for the woman taking pictures:
“….In a time of war, there is no freedom to take pictures of public facilities….”
My apologies, Mr Wolberg. What you are suggesting is something in the neighborhood martial law.
She wasn’t doing this because “she felt like it.” It was part of an assignment. I knew an architecture student when I was in college, and this is exactly the sort of thing that they are supposed to do.
Let me ask this: if we are going to surrender our freedoms willingly, why are we fighting what you call a “war”? I thought it was to protect our freedoms; yet, you suggest we curtail freedom.
And I realize that we disagree on this, but we are not “at war.” We cannot be “at war” with a non-cohesive group of individuals. To you, that may sound naive; it’s not. It’s a hard look at reality. These individuals mean us harm, but this is an affair for the police, not the military.
In fact, in this struggle the diversion of resources and money to the military has been a huge mistake. Had even a fraction of that money been put into projects that would actually make us safer, perhaps we wouldn’t need to be so fearful and hypervigilant and willing to squelch basic freedoms.
For example, did you realize that the VP’s son-in-law led a lobbying effort on behalf of the chemical industry to PREVENT legislation requiring that chemical plants increase their security? The chemical industry fought–and defeated–this legislation because these “Captains of Industry” would rather protect their profits than protect this nation’s citizens.
In my opinion, these are the people who are the ones giving aid and comfort to our enemies. They wear suits, live in fancy houses, and scorn “the little people” who try to interfere with their righteous pursuit of ever-more profit. At the same time, they are making it easier for terrorists to pull off an horrific attack on a chemical plant.
And surely you’re aware of the proliferation of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles? The airline industry has successfully resisted requirements that would install equipment to defend against such a missile fired at a civillian airliner. Why? Because it’s too expensive, of course. And this is the same industry that refused to spend money to harden cockpit doors, which may have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
So, please, Mr Wolberg. Be more circumspect in your calls for something like martial law. Save your vitriol for the real criminals who believe that profits have more value than human lives.
Unfortunately, silly is as silly does. I hope you have not been standing too close to the exhaust of those shoulder fired missiles Klaus. But, I would suggest that rationality must prevail. Public places are indeed targets and are more vulnerable than airports. There is ample precedent fo rational rules and a prudent approach is to be careful and alert. There is nothing new about security in public places. Indeed, years ago, asked by the military to look at a piece of ground for them, I was required to jump through any number of hoops to gain entrance even though I was there at their request and was very far (miles) from any sensitive area. Moreover, I was not allowed to have a camera or any recording device, but a phtographer was provided. An associate was denied access because he was not a citizen.
Rulkes are rules, and in times of stress and threat, rules matter and the old saw, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” is valid.
No one has declared martial law. However, I do not think rational folks object and I suspect that rational folks agree that public buildings are simply off limits, without control and supervision, to observation, picture taking, note-taking in these times of serious threat. I also suspect the lady (kid) with the camera understood this either is less than bright, or more interested in the attention she recieved. I am certain if she simply told the security folks she wanted to take pictures, and the reasons, there would have been no issue. Finally, there is a very gray area between strapping explosives on one’s person and taking pictures of federal facilities. But the end point of both can be the same–the potential for another disaster.
Wow. “Rational folks” don’t object to…martial law? My apologies, Mr Wolberg, but I have to take issue with that statement, if that is what you’re saying.
And I don’t recall any announcement that taking pictures of public buildings had been declared “verboten” until further notice. Did I miss that? Could you let me know when, and by whom, this was announced? And I think most “rational folks” would understand the large difference–even if it is gray–between taking pictures and strapping explosives on one’s person.
Again, Mr Wolberg, if we are simply going to surrender our liberties, what are we fighting for? Yes, a police state is more secure than a democracy, but in which would you prefer to live?
I don’t recall anyone asserting anything about martial law. Instead I believe that what was stated was that the notion of yelling fire, when there was none, or if the mindless provoking a response from authorities, when just about everyone alive in the U.S. understands that the rules of life have changed since the 9/11 declartation of war on us, are not acceptable behavior.
Although we are not where Mr. Lincoln was, when a different threat required extreme measures, we are where FDR was and Truman was–we are at war. The rules are that one does not take pictures of federal facilites such as veteran’s hospitals or military bases, nor does one take pictures at airports or ferry boats or significant buildings, nor does one spread a prayer rug on an airliner in flight or stand and chant Allah is Great, and NOT expect a response from security people. No one’s freedom of creative digital camera is being denied, or of chanting; context and perception is what matters. And for security people to do less than they did would be a denial of their responsibilites to protect all of us.
Again, if the lady wanted a picture of the federal facility, she had only to ask. That she did not understand that there might be a consequence for her actions, seems to me to either indicate limited understanding of the world, or the possibility that she intended to provoke. The lady at the airport, with more concern for her “art” than sanity, would seem to me to lie more in the realm of therapy than criminality, but she is lucky to be alive.
Mr Wolberg, we are not, and cannot be “At War With Terrorism.” The use of the term “war” is a rhetorical trick designed to cloak this admin’s actions in a haze of patriotism. I am a bit surprised that an obviously intelligent and educated man such as yourself can fall for a two-bit parlor trick. It dishonors the real sacrifices by an entire nation during a real war, such as WWII.
It is also telling that you seem to think spreading a rug and praying should evoke a response. You protest the firing of a college professor, then claim that a Muslim has no right to pray on an airliner. Granted, having a person kneeling in the aisle of a plane may be a saftey issue, but that is an entirely different matter.
I will ask you again: if we are going to surrender our freedoms without a whimper, why are we fighting this so-called “war”?
Please also see my comment under the Medical Marijuana post.