The Seattle Times has more information on the suspicious ferry passengers that the FBI is looking for, reporting that they
rode as many as six different ferry routes in recent weeks -- snapping photos of doorways and going to areas of the boats where passengers don't normally goThe P-I has more too, but the Times publishes a photo of the persons of interest, while the P-I still declines to publish the photos, "citing civil liberties and privacy concerns, which editors felt outweighed the newsworthiness of the images".
The P-I does report this related story: "Discovery of 'suspicious package' delays state ferry service".
Let's assume for arguments sake that the 'suspicious package' was not dangerious, that there are no serious security threats to the ferry system and the persons of interest are innocent people, unfairly singled out. Won't identifying them as quickly as possible only serve to calm unfounded public concerns and enable the ferries to operate without further distractions?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 22, 2007 10:53 AM | Email ThisLGF is saying that the suspicious package was a bundle of sparklers stuffed behind the toilet in a stall in the men's room.
Those Amish, up to their pranks again!
Posted by: dan on August 22, 2007 10:53 AMNo.
Publishing the pictures does identify the folks enough to sustain a defamationj suit -- but only if there were a false and defamatory statement published with the pictures. Saying "The FBI wants to talk to these folks because they were seen photographing non-scenic parts of the ferry six times" is not a false statement, so no suit. It is also not a defamatory statement.
Not convinced?
think about a "Wanted" poster.
Even if the dude is acquitted, h does not get to sue the FBI for "deamation"....he was in fact "wanted" and the poster doesn't say "this dude is guilty."
Here, they would not even be saying these guys are "wanted" for a crime. the authorities just want to talk to them at this point.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on August 22, 2007 11:01 AMAccording to the Times:
"Neither man is a suspect or has been charged with a crime; the FBI says it simply wants to identify them."
LGF is saying that the suspicious package was a bundle of sparklers stuffed behind the toilet in a stall in the men's room.
Heard about that on the radio this morning, does that mean these men planted them there? If so then they would be suspects and the PI could run the photos without fear of a libel lawsuit.
I agree with you. Heck I would bet that the P-I prints pix of peeps every day without their permission too.
/wink
Posted by: kim in vancouver on August 22, 2007 11:08 AMLooks like this guy got in trouble for doing the same thing these men were doing.
As someone explained yesterday that 'young Arab men between 16 & 50' are responsible for a significant number of terrorist attacks. Sticking images of two middle eastern men next to a article on suspicious ferry activity would puts the words terrorist in your head, as clearly demonstrated by the many posts on this site and others.
According to the law "suspicious activity" is not a crime. It's kind of a gray area but I would imagine it would open up the paper to a potential libel suit.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures of anyone in a public place like a Ferry. The P-I does it all the time, and often does not bother to identify who is in the pictures.
This is yet another great example of why Progressives are destined to fail. They cling to failed collectivist ideologies like multiculturalism, political correctness, socialized medicine, etc. no matter how often they have been shown to fail, and no matter how much that requires an evasion of basic common sense or self preservation.
There are very few Americans who would side with the ACLU and other ultra-progressive organizations in protecting some vague possible encroachment of civil liberties, with the possibility of opening enormous security holes that would endanger the lives of many people, and make it easier for Americans to be killed.
Yet, these fools continue with their ridiculous and irrational ways. No matter the rapid decline in circulation at the P-I, with layoffs and most likely the ultimate closing of the paper altogether. No, the Leftists still press on.
The P-I is the very definition of fools. And they shall reap what they sow.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 22, 2007 11:29 AMFrom the Times article:
When the photos were released late Monday afternoon, The Times refrained from publishing them in print or online. "We had little more information than we'd reported earlier in the month, and we wanted to better understand the circumstances surrounding the investigation and the photographs," said Suki Dardarian, managing editor of news coverage and enterprise.
Yes, but they don't run those photos next to articles on suspicious activity on ferry boats do they? No, because people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. It's libel when you associate someone with a crime or potential crime for which they have been charger or identified as a suspect. Since the the FBI says it simply wants to identify them, these me still have the same rights as anyone else in this country regardless of their race/sex/ethnic origin.
No, the Leftists still press on.
Well no shit sherlock, if you want to go live in a one party fantasy land move to China.
I hope this incident makes all of our citizens more aware of what is going on around them and willing to take photos of (many now have those cell phones with picture taking ability) and report suspicious activity.
Some may claim this is Big Brother, and I am very sensitive to Big Brother but this is merely being cautious at a time of war. If these people are innocent then nothing will happen to them but this could be a much needed break for law enforcement in identifying Seattle Terror Cells.
Posted by: Gus on August 22, 2007 11:57 AMWe are at war, but that does not automatically disable the laws or civil liberties given to the people of this country by Congress and the President. We've had the War on Drugs for over two decades yet open air drug deals still happen on the streets of downtown Seattle.
this is merely being cautious at a time of war.
"merely being cautious at a time of war" is not a legal argument and would not hold up in court of law. A newspapers is a business like any other and they have certain laws like libel which directly apply to them. Court have ruled that Bloggers are exempt from libel suits so they can publish the picture freely without fear of retribution (which is what they are doing).
I don't think anyone in this modern world gets their news exclusively from the PI. Suspicious activity is not a crime.
I hope this makes us more aware of ALL suspicious activity since there are Bosnian Muslims who are white and also I am sure Muslims can find enough American haters in this country to do their bidding for them.
Don't be afraid to take pictures and report suspicious activity. It may be nothing or indeed it may be the break the law has been waiting for the law to break up the Seattle Terror Cells that we all know probably exist.
Posted by: Gus on August 22, 2007 12:14 PMA reasonable person would understand the circumstances for concern and support authorities in doing their jobs instead of bitching about it, or filing law suits.
I think you bleed more for terrorists that you do their victims.
I don't think they said anything. Most businesses try to avoid potential lawsuits whenever possible (unless you're a huge corporation like AT&T, MS, Boeing, Starbucks, etc where you are just a big moving target). It's the same reason that there are warning labels on everything these days.
But, let us not forget that these pictures were ONLY released after it was reported to the FBI that they have been seen on different routes and that they were asking questions about Ferries that few tourists or commuters would ask.
Regardless of why people became suspicious of them they were displaying enough suspicious behavior to warrant at least having a talk with these people.
We do need to be careful now to watch out for white people acting suspicious as sure if al Quada has some white people as members they will certainly use them. Again, those with camera cell phones don't be afraid to use them. I am sure you can report what you saw anonymously if you are afraid of being sued.
Posted by: Gus on August 22, 2007 12:50 PMThey are not terrorism suspects nor have they been accused of a crime. They exhibited 'suspicious activity' on public transit. They are two arab men, when you put images of Arab looking men next to the words 'Suspicious Activity' what's the first thing that pops in your head? Terrorist? 9/11? AlQ?
When you put that in a newspaper you have to stand behind it. Guilt by association is a form of libel. Since people automatically put those two together as seen by numerous comments here the men would possibly have a case for libel (assuming they're just tourists and not terroists).
A better question to ask is did these men not get questioned earlier by security personnel after numerous people reported them? The link I posted earlier contained a story about a guy taking photos, he was stopped and questioned by the State Patrol for taking photos only once.
BECAUSE THE SECURITY PERSONNEL WERE AFRAID OF BEING SUED!
It was only afterwards when the FBI was connecting the dots of these people being seen on several routes did someone have the guts to want to question them.
Again, if these were white people, especially if they looked "rural" (ie Militia stereotype) you better believe that some security personnel would immediately ask what they were doing.
If these people aren't found and something does indeed happen, it will be Political Correctness that will have caused it again. I can just hope that the great majority of victims will be liberals.
Posted by: Gus on August 22, 2007 01:19 PMRon Sims should to.
Just do it like once a day and then drive back to Olympia, I wouldn't see it as a waste of time for her to do so.
Posted by: Gus on August 22, 2007 01:24 PMVery good, and with the likes of Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell in office they have reason to fear.
I can't stick your photo in a newspaper and claim you have the "potential" to be a terrorist, rapist, or mass murderer. That would be libel, because I associated you with a crime or potential crime without proof or evidence to back up my claim.
When you become a suspect in a crime that was committed I can publish your photo because the crime has already happened and you have been named as a suspect by Law Enforcement. Once you are named by law enforcement it becomes public knowledge and you become a person of interest to the community at large.
Like I said, 'suspicions activity' is not a crime (yet).
There's a picture on his web page (not his blog) of window reflecting a guy taking a photo. I am guessing that's a picture of him and he's WHITE.
It is interesting that this happened so recently. It makes me wonder if the State Patrol knew that the Arab looking men were around taking photos but they were afraid to go up and ask them questions. But when they saw the white guy do it they hoped that he was in the same cell and thought well he couldn't sue us, or accuse us of racism like the arab looking men could.
So how long did law enforcement officials know about the Arab looking men before the FBI said "enough is enough"? Or perhaps there were law enforcement people monitoring them but they were afraid to act. But then when law enforcement stopped seeing them they got freaked out fearing that whatever was going to happen was near.
Posted by: Gus on August 22, 2007 01:40 PMCato, no one said they committed a crime. But please, don't force our law enforcement to be stupid here.
That is not being a libertarian. That is just being plan stupid.
Posted by: Gus on August 22, 2007 01:42 PMLaw enforcement should have stopped them and asked them what they were doing. They have every right to do so.
All I'm saying is that the PI could have a libel suit on their hands if they published the photo with the words 'The FBI hopes to determine whether the men are innocent passengers or possible terrorists.' Currently they are private citizens who are not suspects in a crime.
It won't be long, Swatter, before the Republicans declare 'suspicious activity' grounds for terrorism and haul everyone away to prison where they will be tortured for information.
Did they skip Totalitarianism in your educational upbringing?
Posted by: Cato on August 22, 2007 01:55 PMGet real, Cato. We used to think that of Johnson and nothing happened.
Posted by: swatter on August 22, 2007 02:01 PMYou don't know that. I'm sure the other papers consulted their legal dept's and decided it was worth the risk. The PI as an independent business is perfectly free to choose otherwise.
I mean seriously, you guys accuse me of group think. Take a look in the mirror.
to dang funny!
Posted by: kim in vancouver on August 22, 2007 02:44 PMNot much to fear, since those photos are all over the media now, MSM and blogs too. A red herring of the PC variety, encouraged by 'civil rights' absolutists.
If lawsuits are to be avoided, let's stipulate (for discussion only, thank you) that those blokes were indeed planning an attack, aiming for mass casualties. Blam. Now the lawsuits (one for every passenger on the whole politically correct boat) exceed by orders of magnitude the phantom one so feared by the P-I.
What's worse for society: the P-I's publishing photos while fearing a possible suit, or the PC inaction which enables an attack and the inevitable multiple lawsuits following?
Never mind that these guys were exploring parts of the ferry boat that people normally are not allowed to access. Or that they were trying to measure the boat, etc.
If you can't catch the guy with the bomb fuse in one hand and a lighter in the other, then we just have to accept that they hate us and that we get blown up. That's good journalism at the P-I.
Shortly thereafter, the flying imman scam was foisted on the public. The immans assumed the position of hijacker and acted extremely suspicious. They were reported. Now, the people reporting are being sued by the grandstanding immans.
P-I, whose side are you on? The side of security or the side of allowing dry runs by 'suspicious' people who just happen to look midEastern. And the keyword is suspicious behavior.
P-I, you need to ask yourself if you report, is it because of suspicious behavior or color of skin? Every incident todate has been suspicious behavior as the driving force.
Posted by: swatter on August 22, 2007 04:21 PMYou can take photos all you want, the law says you cannot publish a photo of someone accusing them of being a terrorist in a newspaper no matter what their race if they haven't done any evidence to prove they are terrorists. Acting suspicious on a ferry is a far stretch from an act of terrorism.
I can't put your face next to the word MASS MURDERER in a newspaper and expect to get away with it.
Or that they were trying to measure the boat
Ummm yeah, I can measure the boat from the internet. I can even see where they are at any given time. 'Evil doers' don't need to be on the vessel for that information, it's public knowledge.
If they we're acting suspicious, law enforcement should have confronted them when they were on the ferry or getting off the ferry.
Jeff's comment at 44 pretty much defines the libel argument. You stick a photo of an Arab guy and the word terrorist together and you automatically associate the two regardless if they are innocent or not. It's perfectly legal to think that, when you put it in a for profit news publication it becomes libel.
That's true, and the PI could have chosen to run it that way.
The question then becomes is it newsworthy? The FBI is looking for a lot of people.
The story certainly has more teeth when you attach the words POTENTIAL TERRORISTS to it. Wouldn't you agree?
Based on his head-in-the-sand comments from the "Have you seen these men" earlier post, perhaps Lefty is thinking "Yep, sounds like innocent tourists from Texas. Yep. Nothing to see here. Move along, please."
Posted by: Michele on August 22, 2007 05:20 PMMichele, you've already labeled them as terrorists based on the very scant details the FBI provided, correct? That's fine. Now put a picture with those facts, even more conclusive in your mind correct? If you saw one of them in person you would immediately think 'OMG, it's one of the terrorists'. That's fine too.
That's not fine if your a newspaper. It's called false association and is grounds for a libel lawsuit (until there is proof that they are terrorists or potential terrorists). Potential future crimes don't count, we don't live in the Minority Report.
Get a clue already.
The libel argument is a fig leaf and a Red Herring. No one is expecting the P-I to publish a photo of these individuals with the caption "Mass Murders" or "Suspected Terrorists" or even "Persons of Interest." All the P-I has to do is report the truth, which is that the FBI would like to speak to men seen in these photos.
By not publishing the photos, the P-I has made an even bigger mess for any would be libeled Arab Male, in that without a picture, anyone matching that vague description would then be subject to suspicion from all of the readers of the P-I. That's far worse from a multiculturalist and civil liberties perspective.
Your arguments are a weak fig leaf for political correctness over common sense. You don't know what the ferry employees saw as suspicious behavior, yet you assume that these must not be nefariously motivated men, because they could have looked up presumed information on the Internet. If you were going to commit a crime, would you look up stuff on the Internet, or take a look in person? That does not prove anything either way, but it is ridiculous to use that as a basis for why these men should note be investigated.
And maybe the cops of the FBI were not aware of the suspicious activity in time to question the men on or after the disembarked the ferry. People move. There's no confinement to location for questioning if ferry employees saw something suspicious. That's part of their job as being responsible for the safe transfer of large numbers of the public over frigid waters.
And there's nothing wrong at all with questioning someone, but in order to do so, you have to find them, and in order to find them, it's perfectly reasonable that a police organization might use a picture distributed through the media to do so. The P-I used the lame excuse that they were afraid to implicate someone innocent, when they knew full well that the FBI was interested in speaking to these men. They might have been able to hang on to the thread of privacy protection, were it not for the case that the police were already interested. And that is a big difference between randomly posting a picture of someone with a caption "Suspected Terrorist" and cooperating in public security.
The P-I, along with many other Leftists organizations continue to demonstrate that faux paeans to liberties and advancing certain anti-war, pro-multicultural narratives is paramount to their interest in what should be a universally shared goal of security.
The stupid Haiku Contest entry that they ran said it best:
Possible Danger?
Political Correctness
Paper Fails Duty
Let me point out the flaw here. We are at war, yet we still have this thing called Freedom. We also have this thing called innocent until proven guilty. Now your saying we should remove these basic freedoms because we are at war. Maybe we should cancel the PUSA elections next year 'because we're at war'. Let's not change leaders in the middle of a war. Let's take away the freedom of people of Arabic decent to peacefully assemble because 'were at war'. Heck, TTimothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were white, we can't tell who the terrorists are, let's take away all freedom to peacefully assemble because 'were at war'. People who want to go down the slippery slope of 'were at war' let's stop freedom argument make me sick.
The War against terrorism is the same way, we have Americans that do not believe in it, they would rather support the terrorists than defend the United States.
How many people have died in this country due to terrorist related attacks? Now how many people have died in the war on drugs? The later far outweighs the former. People take the war quite seriously, enough to report these men on several occasions. It sounds like it was law enforcement and ferry security that did not take 'the war on terrorism' seriously enough to even bother to question these men after multiple reports.
Maybe it's law enforcement that 'would rather support the terrorists than defend the United States.' They have the power to question anyone they please.
The libel law does not change because 'were at war'.
Cato, you've lost this one. Libel requires some sort of defamation. A picture of two men standing near a deck rail is not defamation. You are the one reading the libel in to the picture. I can't recall a single instance of some mob of white conservatives harassing Arab Males and trying to take away their rights. It must be in your imagination.
Quite the opposite is true when Arab Males boarded a plane last year and behaved suspiciously specifically to invoke a reaction and incitement towards the narrative you have accepted. And all that happened there, was that reasonable, prudent Americans reported the suspicious behavior. And the Supreme Court defended their right to do so. The P-I is well within its rights to publish those photos, which is why many other papers and TV news stations did.
You just sit tight and keep waiting for those law suits to come piling on.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 22, 2007 06:12 PMBTW, Michelle Malkin has a hilarious entry describing similarly how the PI instead of publishing the photos, held a haiku contest instead, as their contribution to informing the citizens. Amazing. They must be liberal. (no, duh!)
Posted by: Michele on August 22, 2007 06:22 PMYes, but that's not libel, that's political correctness. They reported the story without the photos of two people who did nothing illegal. When you put the photo there it's libel, guilt by association.
"In this case, (Assistant Special Agent in Charge Dave)Gomez said the suspicious activity of the two men has been deemed to not rise to the level of planning terrorism "that we know of." But that lack of certainty is "why we want to talk to them."
So they haven't done anything wrong but act suspicious. That's not a crime.
There's no confinement to location for questioning if ferry employees saw something suspicious.
Sure there is, how about locking them in a bathroom and holding them till law enforcement arrives. Stick them in passengers car, if the passengers asks why, tell them it's because 'were at war' and if you don't allow it they can tell the passenger that they are 'supporting the terrorists than defending the United States. I'm sure they could have improvised had they needed to.
The P-I used the lame excuse that they were afraid to implicate someone innocent
How is that lame, seems to fit perfectly with the way the court system in this country works.
There is a big difference between randomly posting a picture of someone with a caption "Suspected Terrorist" and cooperating in public security.
Yeah, it's called libel lawsuit. Remember the accused have not actually done anything wrong. Public security may enforce the law but they are not a judge and jury, nor do they write the laws that newspapers must follow.
what should be a universally shared goal of security.
Or the fact that we're all scared of the potential act when very few acts come to pass. More people die in car accidents in a single day than have died in the history of terrorist attacks in this country. Yes, terrorist attacks happen, law enforcement is on the lookout, people are concerned, but I'm going to continue to live my life the way I did before 9/11 and not let my civil liberties go down the tube in the name of 'mutual security'. Mutual security is what the FBI, ATF, DOJ, CIA, Homeland Security, etc are paid to do. If I see something suspicious I will report it, but I'm not going to freak out over whether the PI is undermining national security by not publishing a photo that's plastered all over the internet.
Wake up, get a clue, and move on with your life.
Well, in light of the fact that the # of ferry boat patrons barely exceeds Sound Transit and potential downtown/SeaTac loon rail riders at beyond numbing costs/ride staffed by horrifically overpaid rope draggers/ticket takers, personally, I think those dudes might just be doing taxpayers a favor.......a big favor.......
Posted by: Hank on August 22, 2007 07:00 PMNo one said the men had committed a crime. But that does not mean the FBI does not have a right to speak with them and clarify their activities. You argue for putting the men in a passenger's car to hold them, and then you argue they have not done anything wrong. So which is it? Trying to dissect the responses from the commenters here into pieces is not proving your case. The point is that the ferry personnel did the right thing in not detaining the men, but passing the information on the the FBI for investigation. The FBI called for the public to help in finding the men, and provided the pictures that the P-I decided not to publish.
No one said that the P-I broke that law by not showing the photos, only that their excuse and logic for doing so were lame, and against the prudence dictated by an FBI inquiry, not to mention a poor business decision in light of their competition.
And the issue is not whether or not the photo was posted by other news sources, the topic of the post is that "It's not in the P-I" to compare and contrast the P-Is vision vs. that of other news sources.
And the car accidents vs. terrorism, another Red Herring. Car accidents are accidents. We can't predict them, and they are not the result of a malicious organized activity designed to kill a lot of people, and inflict uncertainty as to their cause.
Cato, you've lost this argument on every level. There's probably 20 comments here that disprove your insistence that running a photo constitutes libel, yet you then defend the P-I by saying that they did not need to run the photo, because it was already on the Internet. Again contradicting yourself.
Sit down sir.
Libel - I think you don't know what the word really means... Publishing a photo and asking for help identifying the people because they are persons of interest is NOT libel. It does not meet the definition of libel, nor does it meet the legal requirements to qualify as libel.
You're way off base on this one. If YOU have such a racist view that anytime YOU see a couple of middle-eastern guys wanted by the FBI and you think terrorist, that's you're own problem. Don't project it on others...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 22, 2007 07:07 PMSee now Hank's advocating domestic terrorism, lets stick his photo in the paper next to the words "SUSPICIOUS COMMENTS ADVOCATING TERRORISM ON WEBSITE LEAD FBI TO SEEK vatnsdal48@yahoo.com. (insert photo here)"
Why are conservatives so intent with killing/destroying people who disagree with them? Must be that 'were at war' and 'mutual security' thing.
Fox News says:
America is not safe till everyone agrees with our self-righteous opinions. Only when dissent is squashed will we truly be safe.
Apparently you are thrilled with the fact that ferries, sound transit, light rail and busses, transporting bare minimums of commuters, cost the rest of us exorbitant amounts of dollars.
Apparently, you are thrilled with the fact the PI is more interested in political correctness that preserving public assets.
What is it like there in 24/7 Disneyland, pal?
Posted by: Hank on August 22, 2007 07:32 PMYou mean like these Govt. Employees? Or maybe these ones?
Apparently you are thrilled with the fact that ferries, sound transit, light rail and busses, transporting bare minimums of commuters, cost the rest of us exorbitant amounts of dollars.
Or maybe it's the fact that mass transit works when there are fewer roads? As opposed to paving everything and hoping that traffic gets better.
PI is more interested in political correctness that preserving public assets.
Maybe, but there's no shortage of locals to get the photo. Why does it matter if the PI runs it or not? It's still a free country.
What is it like there in 24/7 Disneyland, pal?
Why is it like 24 in your little GOP fantasy world? Last I checked LA was still there, I guess reality has already won.
Seriously, Cato, are you a teacher?
I am not a teacher. Lucky you.
If anyone thinks gov't employees are underpaid, God help us all. No one has defined benefit plans anymore, other than gov't, simply because they are not affordable, and are unrelated to performance and accountability.
Gee, for someone so hot about govt, one would think you would be the first to string up/reveal/hang subversives trying to trash govt assets.
Talk about a bundle of contradictions. OOPS.......it's all about nonsense, isn't it??
Posted by: Hank on August 22, 2007 08:03 PMThe point was that government employees are well paid, on average, compared to private sector employees. As usual you don't provide evidence to counter that argument, only a link to an article that has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand.
Anecdotal evidence is not proof, but I remember a long time ago meeting a woman who was employed by the city of Bellevue. She was younger than I, with a BA in physical education, and she was making more than I was with a BS in engineering from one of the nation's top schools.
That's not a complaint, we both accepted a salary that was offered. But it does serve to provide an example for the fact that government employees are not underpaid.
BTW, Cato, from reading your posts I am guessing that you are a liberal in his mid 20s, and either working for a non-profit or government agency, or a grad student. How accurate am I?
Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 22, 2007 08:49 PMNope, but hey if you want to stereotype yourself be my guest.
The point was that government employees are well paid, on average, compared to private sector employees.
That's true, but teachers salaries don't seem to equal what people on here are claiming. I can tell you the a friend of mine who is a Govt. employee has much better health insurance than my private insurer provided through my employer.
she was making more than I was with a BS in engineering from one of the nation's top schools.
Either you had very poor grades or you should seriously find another job.
I am guessing that you are a liberal in his mid 20s, and either working for a non-profit or government agency, or a grad student. How accurate am I?
Haha, not even close. Stefan knows, he called me out during the whole Darcy Burner thing a while back.
Good. Wouldn't want your writing style to rub off on someone else.
LOL! Yeah, I'm not too worried about making complete sentences.
Posted by: Cato on August 22, 2007 09:34 PMBetter to find a solid wall to bang your head against, than waste your time on cato.
Posted by: Moondoggie on August 22, 2007 09:44 PMAnd Cato, why are you concerned if the PI gets sued?
Posted by: Chris on August 22, 2007 09:54 PMI love it when people start referring to my posts as though I have a side. My side is my own, my opinions are my own. I try not to make broad generalizations about people maybe you should do the same.
But when the FBI starts connecting the dots, and doing quality police work, they scream about that too
Too bad the local police / ferry employees couldn't do the same. It only took a couple of photos for this non-arab to get a visit by the WSP.
Cato, why are you concerned if the PI gets sued?
I could care less if they get sued. I'm just saying the PI has every right not to publish the photo (anyone remember Richard Jewell?). The photo is all over the internet (even on SP front page). Anyone who wants to see it can.
Well look who's been shooting his mouth off again, and by what I've read you've been slapped around Cato.
I find it odd cato. The FBI is asking questions about two people and because the PI (soon to be a out of biz paper)won't show the pictures, you have a melt down.
Did you forget cato but before 9/11 people were asking questions about some arab guys who wanted to fly planes but not learn to land. Well we learned the hard way because NO one wanted to stick their noses in it.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 23, 2007 07:09 AMI always wonder what the people here will say after Clinton is sworn in and she goes after her 'enemies' again by abusing the terrorism powers privilege?
My big question- where are those guys? It has been a couple of days down with their faces plastered all over the press. If they were innocent, don't you think they would have turned themselves in? And if not innocent, "who are these guys?" as Redford and Newman said to each other at the end of the movie.
Posted by: swatter on August 23, 2007 07:09 AMWOW, you find this whole thing humorous! What an ugly comment.
Posted by: NW Denizen on August 23, 2007 07:24 AMBy Lornet Turnbull, Janet Tu and Mike Carter
Seattle Times staff reporters
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003849315&zsection_id=2002111777&slug=ferries23m&date=20070823
So why what else is new. The article states "Dozens of Muslims and Arabs have complained to community leaders about the photographs."
To which I say: "they can kiss my Irish ass."
Posted by: JDH on August 23, 2007 08:25 AMOh, but out of the other side of his mouth, their spokesman says; "But we all want the same thing -- that is the safety and security of our country,"
They can have a smooch on my Swedish, German, Russian keester as well.
Posted by: NW Denizen on August 23, 2007 09:22 AM
Those who assume these men are Arabs, or Islamic, are the ones guilty of stereotyping. Neither the FBI nor the media which published the photos ever stated, or implied, that these men were Arabs or Muslem.
How curious that CAIR and the Seattle Islamic spokespeople assume they are, and thus read nefarious motives into the publication of the photos. Maybe they know something the rest of us don't.
Our eternal vigilance in defense of our freedom will trump this idiotic political correctness, I hope. If not, the battle is lost and we will be destroyed, enslaved, or forced to submit.
Everyone must choose. Good luck to us all.
Posted by: Steve on August 23, 2007 10:32 AMAny other possibilities?
Posted by: Organization Man on August 23, 2007 11:38 AMJudging by the comments here they likely went back to their AlQ training camp to prepare for an attack on the PI building.
Conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism IS a crime, and we do not know if they are guilty of it.
I see, now were judging people for future crimes that they may or may not commit. So much for the notion of innocent until proven guilty.
. I still find it curious that neither of these guys has come forward or been identified by acquaintances.
Me too, but I figure there are much easier targets than a ferry. Besides all ferries have numerous amounts of life rafts and occasionally have a Coast Guard boat with a big machine gun on the front cruising alongside (not that it will do much good in an attack).
Based on the FBI's extremely scant details about the situation they rode multiple ferries multiple times. If these guys had wanted to blow up a ferry they had ample opportunity this summer when no one knew anything about them or bothered to strike up a conversation with them and ask them what they were doing. That extra effort would have either got them arrested or gained intel aout what they were up to.
Nah, couldn't be.
Posted by: swatter on August 23, 2007 02:23 PMWrong again Cato. If they indeed were plotting something, their activity on the ferries itself was a crime - conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. We don't know, and that's why the FBI wants to interview them. The terror cell in London that was busted never got to actually commit the terrorist act. They were arrested and are being prosecuted for conspiracy.
Posted by: Palouse on August 23, 2007 02:44 PMThat's true, but lack of information or inaction on behalf of law enforcement is not a crime.
The terror cell in London that was busted never got to actually commit the terrorist act. They were arrested and are being prosecuted for conspiracy.
I'm not familiar with the English terror cell case so I can't comment on their methods. I'd be willing to bet that MI-5/Scotland Yard/etc had more to go on than 'acting suspicious' when they arrested them.
This doesn't make sense. If you were trying to say that because the FBI doesn't have proof of a crime (yet) that they are still innocent, I agree. Conspiracy charges cannot be proven without talking to them first. However, that doesn't mean what they were doing on the ferries was not a crime. Conspiracy to commit a terrorist act is indeed a crime, we just don't know yet if that's what it was.
The London terror plot was foiled with the use of domestic spying techniques. Ya know, the stuff that national Democrats keep trying to strip from the Patriot Act. They did have more evidence, and that's why the FBI needs to track down these two people - to get it. Who knows, maybe these two people are just regular old middle-eastern men who have a strange interest in the inner workings of old ferries. If that's the case, they should have no problem explaining that.
Posted by: Palouse on August 23, 2007 03:18 PMExactly, and until proven otherwise they are just two Arab looking men who look suspicious (which is not a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime). The amount of detail that the FBI provided was so open ended we don't know what they were doing but taking photos and acting suspicious. If they ever board a ferry again I'm sure law enforcement will be all over them. Until then they have the same rights as anyone else.
I pray that your wife or daughter will not be on any boat if someone (not these two) actually carries out an attack.
Two suspicious Arab men on ferries taking photos does not suggest imminent attack. How do we know that the white guy taking photos (linked earlier) wasn't a a homegrown militia type terrorist? Oh wait, he was stopped for questioning by law enforcement based on a single incedent. The fact the FBI even released the picture speaks volumes about security preparation on Washington State Ferries (it sucks).
WSF is all about overpaid state employees, spastics who want the rest of Washingtonians to subsidize their lifestyle-heavily subsidized marine transportation.
Hence, two issues-crazed transportation subsidies and the security concerns therein.
Accordingly, two issues:
Do we protect state assets or observe insane political correctness? I vote for shooting the bastards.
Do we protect State fiscal insanity/overfunding minority transportation funding and the related union featherbedding, all at the cost of all Washingtonians?
I, for one, not being either a VashonIslander, Bremertonian, freaking liberal Bainbridgeislander, say to hell with 'em overly subsidized commuters.
Posted by: Hank on August 23, 2007 05:44 PMHowever, it COULD be conspiracy to commit a crime. That's why the FBI needs to speak with them. No one is convicting them of anything. It's just an investigation at this point.
Posted by: Palouse on August 24, 2007 07:18 AMNumber one, ferries aren't always the greatest mode of transportation.
Number two, what tourist would want to blow money on six different ferry rides anyway? You've been on one ferry ride, you've been on them all.
Number three, even if someone uses a ferry to commute regularly, he would most likely use only one route.
Number three and a half, ferry rides are boring anyway...why ride if you don't have to?
Suspicious, I say.
Posted by: Cydney on August 24, 2007 11:17 AM
