Nancy Genovese - Innocent Victim or Right Wing Teabagger?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It appears this case will go to trial after all.


http://www.27east.com/news/article.c...Town-Dismissed


And the second story in the above link has more lawsuit weirdness that might be more appropriate for the Religion and Philosophy board.

This is what I expected. You have to really mess up to have a judge find a city liable for 70 million just because an attorney didn't file a reply in time.

What second story?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

your post
gives this when you click on it:...
Amazing, huh?

That's nice. My link has no street view. I don't know what to tell you. I found street views at another Guard site, so it isn't that I don't know how to open up the street view.

Since an aerial and street view were found, this is all a moot point.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Google is a wonderful thing.

The applicable law regarding photographs of US military installations is 18 USC 795, with an executive order, no 10104, definining what can and can't be photographed.

Bottom line: If it's classified, you can't take its picture. Otherwise, snap away.

The Patriot Act made no modifications to any policy related to photography, and I can't find any other record of 21st century modifications, either.

So who determines what is classified, how is it posted, can you see classified things from the street, ....and, it would appear this is consistent with what I've been posting.

I am assuming a sign that says no photographs can indeed indicate no photos, from the street or inside. And none of the Google images necessarily are of whatever it was about or near the helicopter that Genovese was taking pictures of that wasn't allowed.

Bottom line, we have no evidence the police were not acting in good faith.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So who determines what is classified, how is it posted, can you see classified things from the street, ....and, it would appear this is consistent with what I've been posting.

No, it is not consistent with what you are posting. If something is classified it requires a security clearance to access. Before accessing classified data, including equipment, artifacts, documents, etc. specific protocols must be followed to ensure that only those people who have the required security clearance are able to see it.

If you can see it from the street, it isn't classified.

I don't know exactly who can decide what is and isn't classified. There are a wide variety regulations and executive orders that cover such things. In my own experience with classified documents, as an engineer with a defense contractor, there was a security office associated with the program I worked on and they decided what was and was not classified. That office included Air Force representatives and representatives of my company. As an aside, I was very excited when I got my Secret clearance, and could finally see the data about my program that had previously been hidden. In accordance with regulations I signed the receipt, carried it in my designated double envelope, attached my approved lock to my desk, verified the door was locked, opened the envelope to read my document, and discovered that the document was one that I had written. This left me in a bit of a quandry because the document was still sitting on my unclassified computer that I had used to write it in the first place, so now I knew that there was classified data sitting in an unclassified facility, and that was a violation of the regulations.

I know that the base commander can designate part of his facility to be restricted, which is a technical term that has a very specific meaning and does not mean that he has hung a sign on a fence. Once he designates it as restricted, he has to take steps to ensure that it is not exposed to public view. Since it is restricted, only those people with a security clearance that allows them to see restricted data would subsequently be allowed on the portion of the base where they would be able to see whatever it was that was restricted.

Whether the police acted in "good faith" is one issue worth considering, but the real question is whether or not they acted in accordance with the law. It appears to me they did not. Nancy Genovese did not trespass, but they charged her with criminal trespass. Nancy Genovese also appears to have broken no other laws, which explains why she was not charged with breaking any other laws.

She isn't going to win 70 million bucks, but I would be surprised if, at the very least, her lawyer did not get a very handsome paycheck for all of his trouble.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What second story?

There is a story in the link about a lawsuit related to construction of an eruv in the community. It's off topic, but JREFers might find it amusing.It's an orthodox Jewish thing. Since it's off topic, I won't go into it, but google would tell anyone interested everything they need to know.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's nice. My link has no street view. I don't know what to tell you. I found street views at another Guard site, so it isn't that I don't know how to open up the street view.

Since an aerial and street view were found, this is all a moot point.

The Republicans must have put it in the page your link sends us to after you posted it, just to make you look bad...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

There is a story in the link about a lawsuit related to construction of an eruv in the community. It's off topic, but JREFers might find it amusing.It's an orthodox Jewish thing. Since it's off topic, I won't go into it, but google would tell anyone interested everything they need to know.

Interesting. I don't recall hearing about eruvs before. Talk about letting superstitious rituals get out of hand. Stay inside the string. That's funny.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

The Republicans must have put it in the page your link sends us to after you posted it, just to make you look bad...

This is one of the stupider things you've posted.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Google is a wonderful thing.

The applicable law regarding photographs of US military installations is 18 USC 795, with an executive order, no 10104, definining what can and can't be photographed.

Bottom line: If it's classified, you can't take its picture. Otherwise, snap away.

The Patriot Act made no modifications to any policy related to photography, and I can't find any other record of 21st century modifications, either.

Where in this regulation did you read the base commander cannot post, no pictures?

18 USC 795 - Sec. 795. Photographing and sketching defense installations

Quote:

(a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.

Do you know if the President defined anything at the base as requiring protection? I would think that task was delegated to the military and I don't know how far down the chain the military leaders would delegate the task of determining what can or cannot be photographed. The idea one needs base commander permission suggests the task has been delegated to the base commanders.

And nowhere in that longer paragraph does it require base commanders to keep "classified" materials out of view of the public.

Quote:

I hereby define the following as vital military and naval installations or equipment requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto: 1. All military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which are now classified, designated, or marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as "top secret", "secret", "confidential", or "restricted", and all military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which may hereafter be so classified, designated, or marked with the approval or at the direction of the President, and located within: (a) Any military, naval, or air-force reservation, post, arsenal, proving ground, range, mine field, camp, base, airfield, fort, yard, station, district, or area.

Surely everything for which photographs are restricted are not also protected from being seen from the perimeter of a base.

You are going to have to give up here. You are wrong. The base commander can make photographs off limits. I see nothing here that limits that base commander's prerogative to only limiting photography from inside the fence and not from outside the fence.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Where in this regulation did you read the base commander cannot post, no pictures?

He can post whatever he wants. So can I. It would have the same effect, because neither of us can make up crimes.

On the base itself, he can declare that pictures are not allowed, but even then he can't declare that it's a crime to take pictures. He can just throw you off the base. He can probably even seize your camera, and he can certainly seize your photos, but he can't decide it's a crime. The crime is defined in the statute and associated executive order. If you aren't snapping classified data, you're legal.

Quote:

Do you know if the President defined anything at the base as requiring protection?

Yes, I do know, and the answer is no. Executeive order 10104 defines the stuff that you aren't allowed to take pictures of, and that executive order is limited to classified information.

Quote:

I would think that task was delegated to the military and I don't know how far down the chain the military leaders would delegate the task of determining what can or cannot be photographed.

Quote:

The idea one needs base commander permission suggests the task has been delegated to the base commanders.

There are two totally separate issues being confused here. You only need the base commander's permission if you are on the base. He cannot give you permission nor deny you permission to do anything off the base, because he has no authority there.

He can declare that something is "restricted", but if he does that, he has to hide it from the public's eye, not just their cameras.

Quote:

And nowhere in that longer paragraph does it require base commanders to keep "classified" materials out of view of the public.

That's the whole point of "classified" data. Don't you watch spy movies? Seriously, though, it is a crime to reveal classified data to anyone who doesn't have a clearance. If you've got an experimtental aircraft on your base, and you leave it parked on the runway where teabaggers can take its picture, the teabagger might get off the hook, but the guy who left it parked there is in a world of trouble, possibly including jail time.

Quote:

Surely everything for which photographs are restricted are not also protected from being seen from the perimeter of a base.

Surely it is. "Restricted" is not just some adjective whose meaning you can find in the dictionary. It is one of the four classifications of sensitive material used by the US military, along with "confidential" "secret" and "top secret". If it's "restricted", you can't leave it where someone can see it from the perimeter of the base.

It is a crime to take photographs of classified equipment, installations, documents, etc. That includes "restricted" data. It is also a crime to allow someone to see it if they don't have the proper clearance.

Executive order 10104 spells out what military installations for which photography (or making sketches) is a criminal offense. What does it say? It says you can't take pictures of classified stuff. If you can see it from the road, it darned well better not be classified.

All of this is obviously where your original source got his information. That's why he noted that it was unlikely you could run afoul of the law when photographing military installations, because in order to be able to photograph anything which it was illegal to photograph, you would have to have some sort of special access. That's why he said if you were outside of the property line, photography was permitted. His version, which does not say that a base commander can declare anything he wants off limits, and does not say that a base commander can restrict anything that happens off of his base, is a condensed version of 18 USC 795 and the associated executive order.

Quote:

You are going to have to give up here. You are wrong.

Well, I guess that settles it.

[Meadmaker]

Now for the reading lesson:

Here's what you quoted. It's from executive order 10104.


"I hereby define the following as vital military and naval installations or equipment requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto: 1. All military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which are now classified, designated, or marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as "top secret", "secret", "confidential", or "restricted", "

All right. That's easy enough. If it has been marked with one of those terms, you can't take a picture or make a sketch.

"and all military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which may hereafter be so classified, designated, or marked with the approval or at the direction of the President,"

And that applies to anything that might be classified in the future.



"and located within:"

Wait. Huh? There's an "and". So, it's not enough that it be classified, because there's also this "and" thingy.


" (a) Any military, naval, or air-force reservation, post, arsenal, proving ground, range, mine field, camp, base, airfield, fort, yard, station, district, or area. "

That covers darned near any military facility, doesn't it? So if it is on that area "and" it's classified, you can't take its picture.

But wait just a minute. Why bother with the "and" part. There are other laws that make it a crime to photograph classified data. Why bother with this one?

The executive order is clarifying the scope of 18 USC 795. It only applies to things which are on military installations. Back when I was a contractor, I did all of my work in an office. I could be arrested for making photos of classified data, but I couldn't be charged under 18 USC 795. They would have to use a different law.

So, your own sources are quite clear, if you simply read them. In order to be charged under that law the thing that you photograph has to be

1. classified and
2. on a military base.


Of course, as you cleverly note, there's nothing in the wording of that law that says there isn't some other law that might also exist and be relevant to the question of taking photographs of military installations. There may indeed be a law that is not 18 USC 795 that makes it illegal to disobey signs on fenceposts. There also might be unicorns. The way to demonstrate that these things exist is simply produce an example of such a thing. So far, the posts that you and I have both posted describe a law that does not make anything done by Nancy Genovese illegal.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sorry Mead, the law says the base commander can designate no photos. He did. The police had no reason to doubt that sign was invalid or didn't apply to someone outside the fence.

You have not cited anything that supports your interpretation. You are contorting what is written in the law to conform with what you previously believed. You are not looking at the facts objectively.

End of story.

BTW, if there was something unconstitutional about posting such "no photos" signs on base fences or gates, why haven't photographers challenged the posting?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm sorry Mead, the law says the base commander can designate no photos.

18 USC 795 says some things about what the President can do. What law are you talking about?

Quote:

End of story.

Well, that settles it, then.

Quote:

BTW, if there was something unconstitutional about posting such "no photos" signs on base fences or gates, why haven't photographers challenged the posting?

Because none of them have ever been charged with a crime, despite the fact that lots of them have taken lots of pictures. There's no cause of action to challenge it.

Unless of course you know of such a case where charges were made?

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have the law in front of you. I posted two different sources advising photography buffs what the rules were, the woman was warned then later arrested for repeating the offense she was warned about, the news report says the thing the woman was taking pictures of was posted, "no photos", the legal source says one needs permission of the base commander to take photos of things on the base if there is any doubt, none of the sources confirm one is free to take pictures of anything as long as one is outside the fence, you made up your own interpretation of what is "classified" to fit your preconceived belief the base commander has no authority over someone snapping shots from outside the fence, and now you want me to look up even more evidence.

Do you really think decisions to post a base with "no photos" or to identify a single helicopter (or whatever) are going to be made by the President or the top military commanders personally?

Read this sentence from the quoted legal citation:

Quote:

under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force

That is how all military laws like this one are written. The President and/or top military brass do not make day to day operating decisions. Base commanders do in this case.

How about you find something that proves that claim wrong? Because I have already shown it is correct.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

you made up your own interpretation of what is "classified" ...

So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that you have never been employed within the defense or intelligence community, right?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Back to the OP, after some reading, I'm going to put down my answer as 'both'.

That's the impression I get as well. She's a right wing nutcase who's mostly harmless, we hope. However, she broke no laws, and she sure as heck didn't trespass, and because she was thrown in jail for four days under those circumstances I think she is very likely to win her lawsuit, even though she won't get 70 million bucks..

In my googling, I also have found numerous instances of people being questioned or having photographic equipment or data confiscated, but none of them that I have found have ever resulted in a legal challenge or an arrest. This case may involve untested legal issues.

I have encountered people charged under 18 USC 795, but those cases specifically involved classified data.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that you have never been employed within the defense or intelligence community, right?

How about you clarify your version of how something gets "classified" according to what you posted.

You seem to think that designation has to come from the President or the top military brass themselves.

The regulation makes it clear the base commander can OK photographs. So if something is "classified" as you are defining it, how can that be? And if the commander can say photos are OK, why would they not also have the authority to designate photos as not OK?

I read that law as stating the base commander has the authority to regulate what is photographed on his/her base. That is what posting the perimeter with "no photos" signage also implies. The fact such signage hasn't been challenged (go find a case it was successfully challenged) also supports the interpretation of the law as the base commander has been delegated the authority to control photos of the base.


You can keep insisting your outrage, your claims of no authority off the base, your strange idea that the top military leaders and the POTUS get personally involved in day to day operations of a NG base, that designation of classified for the purposes of no photos wasn't properly done here, (despite no evidence of that), and stamping your feet about citizen's rights. It's an unsupportable position. The base commander has the authority. You have not shown the commander does not.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Back to the OP, after some reading, I'm going to put down my answer as 'both'.

How do you figure innocent victim? Not to get into the debate about the authority to prevent photos through the fence, but what about her claim she was just interested in the helicopter? She blogged prior to the incident that on the dates she was there (I'm paraphrasing) some kind of New World Order-FEMA is planning to arrest you-military exercise was going to occur. She claimed to have been at the shooting range but she made an excuse why there would be no record she had been at the shooting range.


I agree if she was crazy and believed the military was doing something nefarious, and she just went to try to get the evidence and they arrested her for looking through the fence, that would be 'both'.

But she had been there before trying to take pictures and was told not to. The area was posted, no pictures. She came back anyway to take pictures again.

The base people and the police apparently recognized her. They certainly had reason to be suspicious. And given the attacks and attempted attacks on military personel over the last few years, they had reason to be concerned about someone acting oddly with long range firearms in the car.

It's odd to return after being told not to. And this wasn't a hand gun in the glovebox or on the seat because 'concealed' needs a permit.

I would be concerned if the police did not investigate this woman properly. We don't know if the police made an attempt to check her shooting range story. But her claiming she wasn't really target shooting suggests if they had checked they would not have been able to verify her story. And having questioned the woman for several hours, one would hope the police made an effort to confirm her shooting range story.

It's not unusual for police (and this comes from my observing police doing exactly this) to use something to file as a charge that isn't an exact match to the offense. They do this if they feel someone poses a danger but they don't have a charge that exactly fits posing the threat or they aren't sure which law applies. They rely on the prosecutor to apply the correct law to the case later. The police did have reason to believe Genovese was taking pictures illegally.

[mailman]

So it seems this thread has gone somewhat off topic.

So lets get back to the OP.

1. It seems to me that what this woman photographed could be resolved pretty quickly by publishing the contents of the memory card confiscated by the police. Since no photos have been published by the sherrif, it tends to suggest that she was in fact taking a photo of the helicopter as originally claimed.

2. As the woman was NOT charged with any firearms related offenses, we must therefore conclude that she did in fact NOT break any firearms laws. Whether she had 500 rounds or a million rounds is neither here nor there as owning ammo isnt illegal (well, at least I think its not illegal yet). Nor can you take that one photo of a shotgun and a assault rifle as gospel simply because I can find no attribution to those images. But again, if she had an assault rifle, and assault rifles are illegal in NY, then she should have been charged accordingly...unless of course the police broke the law searching her car? Either way, the claims made about her being a gun toting nut case are unfounded.

From personal experience, the only reason Ive never had 500 rounds in my car when coming back from the fireing range with the old man is...I had fired them all off at the range within 10 minutes of getting there!

3. Im struggling with the idea that the airport is a restricted area where you cant take photos, simply because its sounds like the airport is the county airport and not a dedicated national guard airbase. Also, what could she take a photo of that couldnt be found here;
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.836...4&z=19&iwloc=A

4. On that note, it sounds as if some here are being unduly alarmist in claiming the airport is a national guard airbase. Seems the Suffolk County Government of Long Island, NY, would disagree with you;
http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/departme...kiairport.aspx

Quote:

Francis S. Gabreski Airport is a general aviation airport located on 1,453 acres in the Town of Southampton on eastern Long Island. Owned and operated by the County of Suffolk, the Airport has 3 Runways including one 9,000 feet long - among Long Island's longest.

The Airport is utilized by private aviation, corporate businesses, and air taxi services. Two fixed based operators (FBO's), Malloy Air East, (631 288-5410/Fax 631 288-5411) and SheltAir (formerly Long Island Jet Center), (631 288-9866/Fax 631 288-5453) provide aviation services to the airport users.

Gabreski Airport is also home to the 106th Rescue Wing of the Air National Guard. With long range flying capabilities, the 106th operates over-water search and rescue missions, from the Azores to the Bahamas. The unit also assists in disaster relief and other state emergencies. The 106th Rescue Wing, New York Air National Guard, is the parent organization of the Oldest Air National Guard unit in the Country, the 102nd Rescue Squadron tracing its roots back to the 1st Aero Squadron which was formed in 1908 in New York.

While it is true that the ANG has a couple squadrons based at the airport, the simple fact is, as stated above, it is a GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT.

5. No matter how much the left claims it, listening to Glen Beck is not a crime. So what if she listens to him? The claims that she is a violent right wing nutcase have so far only been made by equally moronic leftwing moonbat sites, such as the dailykos who have a vested interest in hating Glen Beck, the right and the tea party movement.

Secondly, again, being a tea party follower is not illegal, nor is it eveidence of any radical right wing ideology. The simple fact is the lack of violence and disorder at tea party movement rally's would tend to suggest that the claims this woman is a violent nut case simply because she is a tea party follower arent based on real life evidence.

Now, when some here speak of the violent nature of the Tea Party Movement, can you back that up with proof, the kind of proof of leftist union aggression we saw in Wisconsin (apols for the spelling ).

6. Im guessing that since the default judgement has been dismissed, and this show will go to trial, that Michael C. Sordi is taking several heavy sighs of relief. The problem here is that the defense should have been filed in October 2010, NOT February 2011. I think its quite right that one of the councillors got really upset at the LACK of action and how the board was exposed to a $70million pay out because a lawyer of theirs didnt do his job properly. I think that same board member is right to challenge the other member who claimed the law suit was frivolous on the grounds that $70million is NOT frivolous!

Im also going to go out on a limb here and say, without having seen the judges reasons for dismissing the default, that the reason it was dismissed was because of the sums of money involved.

However, my gut feeling is that the suffolk county government is in for a world of pain...especially if the sherrifs involved have had prior accusations of brutality made against them.

In all of the posts made there are several common leftists memes here. That she listens to Glen Beck, that she is a tea party member, that she has guns etc. Unfortunately for the left, all of these things are not criminal offenses, and the very fact that she has NOT been charged with any offense tends to suggest she didnt do anything wrong to start with.

Finally...just going back to point 1. Lets see what this woman was photographing. That would clear EVERYTHING up.

Regards

Mailman

[Skeptic Ginger]

1. Why would the police publish photographic evidence? The lawsuit has not yet been replied to by the defense except to say they plan to respond.

Why would confirming she took pictures of the helicopter exonerate her? The issue was 'no photos allowed', not 'no photos of X'.

2. No one said she broke any firearms laws.

3. You and other people in the thread. After Gitmo and the USAPATRIOT Act, why would it be the least bit surprising it might be illegal to photograph something on a military base from the street? I find your idealism to be out of date.

4. I wouldn't know which parts of the airport are open to the public and which parts are not. It's not relevant. The issue was a posted warning, being told photos were not allowed, a base commander having the authority to make such a prohibition, and the woman returning to defy the prohibition.

5. Worse straw man than #2.

6. The council was right to be angry at an incompetent error. Taking it out on the Dep. Attorney in the public meeting seemed rather like the councilman was more interested in acting like a bully than in discussing the best action to take now. The Dep. Att. was correct, and I knew she was correct. I've seen lesser default judgements dismissed with dog-ate-my-homework excuses. No judge in his/her right mind would have allowed that judgement to stand.


As for your gut feeling, you guys are fantasizing about your right to stand anywhere and take pictures of a military installation. Even if true, the court is going to find the police were acting in good faith, and had reason to stop Genovese and to charge her after finding out she was previously warned. The city will have a good lawyer, the woman isn't even likely to earn the assistance of the ACLU, let alone find an attorney to take this case on a contingency. That means she'll have to pay for an attorney or represent herself. I get the impression she started the case representing herself, but I could be wrong.

Maybe Beck can offer assistance and work the case into his paranoia scenario?


Finally, why would her pictures clear up anything?

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

As for your gut feeling, you guys are fantasizing about your right to stand anywhere and take pictures of a military installation. Even if true...

You really tried to hide your capitulation there, eh?

Quote:

...the court is going to find the police were acting in good faith, and had reason to stop Genovese and to charge her after finding out she was previously warned.

How do you figure, if she broke no laws? Ignoring warnings not based on laws isn't illegal. If a police officer tells me not to hang out on a street corner because s/he thinks I might be shady, s/he doesn't get to throw me in jail the next time I'm hanging out on that street corner.

Quote:

The city will have a good lawyer, the woman isn't even likely to earn the assistance of the ACLU...

How does one "earn" the assistance of the ACLU? If you're basing this on her political views, you'd be very wrong as the ACLU is often happy to take on cases where the civil liberties of right wingers are infringed.

Quote:

...let alone find an attorney to take this case on a contingency. That means she'll have to pay for an attorney or represent herself. I get the impression she started the case representing herself, but I could be wrong.

Ah, so all your previous nonsense in this post is based on your speculation that she doesn't have a lawyer. You've got the "impression" that she represented herself just like you've seemingly got the "impression" that military base commanders are laws unto themselves anywhere within line of sight of their base.

Quote:

Maybe Beck can offer assistance and work the case into his paranoia scenario?

As long as you're not hiding your reliance on bias over evidence...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Round and round the mulberry bush
the broken law is ig-nored
the sign on the fence
said no photos forth hence
yet the woman returned to take more.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

1. Why would the police publish photographic evidence? The lawsuit has not yet been replied to by the defense except to say they plan to respond.

Strange isnt it...somehow the photo of the womans "alleged" horde of automatic illegal weapons with a massive cache of ammo was some how leaked to the internet, as if to show her guilt.

Seems someone found the time to try to paint her as a evil right wing tea bagger gun nut, which you seem to have absolutely no issue what so ever with. After all, as you said yourself, "Maybe because she was a gun toting right wing evangelist. Ever think of that"?

Quote:

Why would confirming she took pictures of the helicopter exonerate her? The issue was 'no photos allowed', not 'no photos of X'.

Because, now you need to stay with me here so Ill say this slowly, if the only photo on her memory card is of a helicopter on public property then there is absolutely no question that what the woman was photographing was not only NOT illegal, but was as she explained it to the sherif when she was arrested.

Quote:

2. No one said she broke any firearms laws.

The left has gone nuts over the fact she had firearms in her car...as if that was illegal. Again, no charges, no laws broken, nothing she was doing was illegal. You have also claimed she had an arsenal of weapons, as if this in itself was enough for her to be arrested.

Quote:

3. You and other people in the thread. After Gitmo and the USAPATRIOT Act, why would it be the least bit surprising it might be illegal to photograph something on a military base from the street? I find your idealism to be out of date.

Couple things here, firstly, its not a military airbase she was taking a photo of, which you would know if you bothered to read what the airport website said itself...about itself. Secondly, as I said earlier, if the contents of the memory card were published this would clear this up once and for all. Again, seeing as someone found the time to try and incriminate the woman with a photo of an evil military assault rifle, Im sure someone could find the time to publish the contents of the memory card.

Quote:

4. I wouldn't know which parts of the airport are open to the public and which parts are not. It's not relevant. The issue was a posted warning, being told photos were not allowed, a base commander having the authority to make such a prohibition, and the woman returning to defy the prohibition.

If you dont know, why are you passing judgement on this? On the one hand you dont know, yet you some how do know where she was standing wasnt public property, she wasnt taking photos of a structure on public property, she was warned (she claims she wasnt)...I dunno mate, for someone who doesnt know you seem to know a lot.

Quote:

5. Worse straw man than #2.

Exatly, YET you raised the fact she was a Glen Beck fan, as early as your second post, as if that proved she was guilty beyond doubt. You are right, your argument is a strawman argument...its just that I wouldnt usually expect someone to use this as part of their defense, against an argument they started

Quote:

6. The council was right to be angry at an incompetent error. Taking it out on the Dep. Attorney in the public meeting seemed rather like the councilman was more interested in acting like a bully than in discussing the best action to take now. The Dep. Att. was correct, and I knew she was correct. I've seen lesser default judgements dismissed with dog-ate-my-homework excuses. No judge in his/her right mind would have allowed that judgement to stand.

The council man was quite rightly upset at the actions of a lawyer that had left the city exposed to the tune of $70million...its no wonder he is steaming! He was right to shoot the woman down, this isnt frivilous...its SEVENTY fricking MILLION DOLLARS!

In fact, its so SERIOUS the lawyer was asked to resign. The problem here is the defense should have been lodged in October, yet come February it hadnt been done, thus exposing the Government to SERIOUS liability. That aint frivolous.

I dont think the lawyer who stuffed up was doing so out of malice, no, I think he is doing it out of incompetence as it seems he was also asked to move on from his last job. Then again, why would someone act carefully and in a timely manner...after all, its not like that $70mil is going to come out of his pocket.

Quote:

As for your gut feeling, you guys are fantasizing about your right to stand anywhere and take pictures of a military installation.

And yet no such charge was brought against her. Therefore, she was not taking photos of super secret military black stuff. It seems the only fantasizing going on is between your ears.

Quote:

Maybe Beck can offer assistance and work the case into his paranoia scenario?

It seems this womans real crime here is merely that she listens to Glen Beck, a bandwagon that you jumped on as early as your second post in this thread. But thats ok, because as you said...this is a strawman argument

As I said earlier, the Sherif might be in for a world of hurt if he has had other charges of brutality made against him in the past.

Unlike you though, I am prepared to admit that I dont have all the facts BUT hopefully these facts will come out in the court hearing...assuming of course that the Suffolk County Government doesnt settle out of court first.

Regards

Mailman


Finally, why would her pictures clear up anything?[/quote]

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You seem to think that designation has to come from the President or the top military brass themselves.

You missed the point. To be fair, it was an easy point to miss. I didn’t express myself well. You had asserted that under 18 USC 795 that a base commander had the authority to prohibit picture taking. That’s not true. Under that statute, his role is to protect the sensitive data that is on his base by allowing or prohibiting requests to photograph, and reviewing and censoring the photos after they are taken. It’s an enforcement role, not a policy role.



The actual decision to decide that something can be photographed or not derives, under that statute, from the President. The executive order clarifies that the method used will be the military classification method, in accordance with the secretaries of the various departments that run military facilities. Those people set the policy, which may include delegating specific decisions about classification to lower level civilian or military officials, in accordance with policies dictated by the cabinet secretaries.



The base commander cannot arbitrarily decide that something under his control is or is not classified. Furthermore, he cannot, under the terms of that statute and the executive order implementing the statute, decide what can or cannot be photographed. To the extent that he has any authority, it must be exercised in accordance with that statute, executive order, and associated policies. The executive order dictates that the things which are illegal to photograph are the classified things. Those classified things must be protected according to policies that specify what things should and should not be classified, and how classified material must be handled.



For example, the base commander can’t specify that a “Jolly Green Giant” is actually classified, because it isn’t, and if it were, he would have to, by law, conceal it from the public. Also, none of this has anything to do with “no photos” signs.



To reiterate, the statute you cited, 18 USC 795, does not say that the base commander gets to decide what can and can’t be photographed.

Quote:

The regulation makes it clear the base commander can OK photographs. So if something is "classified" as you are defining it, how can that be? And if the commander can say photos are OK, why would they not also have the authority to designate photos as not OK?

The commander's role, under the statute is to review photographs taken in order to ensure that those photographs don't contain any classified material. It's not to decide what is and isn't classified.

Quote:

The fact such signage hasn't been challenged (go find a case it was successfully challenged)

In order for it to be challenged, it would have to be enforced, and it hasn't been. There's nothing to challenge. This case may involve a peripheral challenge, if the defense brings it up. The plaintiff won't, because she wasn't charged with anything related to no photos. Her case will be that she was charged with trespassing even though she wasn't trespassing. If the defendants try to say that somehow her taking photos was relevant, they'll have to make that case, and the plaintiff might at that time challenge it.

Since the prosecution didn't see fit to charge her, though, the defense might not even bring it up. It will depend on whether or not their lawyers think it might be a winning argument.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has it dawned on you, Mailman, that the picture of the guns was in the arrest record and the reporters got the record because of the Freedom Of Information Act? Do you have evidence the photo was "leaked"? Once the case is no longer an ongoing investigation police reports are discoverable.

It would seem Genovese called attention to herself:

She was arrested on Thursday, went to court on Friday and this was in Sat's paper.
This is the first story I could find. Yes, he calls her a "Gun Nut" in the headline.

Quote:

She was arraigned yesterday afternoon at Southampton Town Justice Court, where a judge set bail at $50,000, and then ordered Genovese held for a psychiatric examination after she went berserk in the courtroom.

Daily Kos reported "Glenn Beck Fan, Highly Armed, Busted For Casing National Guard Base, Thinking It Was A "FEMA Camp"" the next day, Sunday. But they did their homework, they didn't just make the stuff up. They found the woman's MySpace Page.

Have you looked at it?

Quote:

...corrupt Leftwing extremist Barack Hussien Obama and the rest of the socialist criminals in Washington DC...
...so now Obama and others buddies have our tax cash and we will be slaves for generations to come. ...
...This is a large group of afro Americans protesting agaisnt Obama. I think people need to see that. Obama during his campaign made people like this, believe he was going to hand out all they needed, he lied and they dont like it. ...
...anything negative towards Obama, is just ignored by our media. Its like they were gagged...

Then there is the FEMA stuff. After a call to FEMA about the foreign troops at their camps:

Quote:

I asked him several times why the FEMA home page says the foreign troops will be at the drill, and it names the countries, Mexico, UK, Canada, etc.
He insists there are not NOW (which is a lie) nor will be foreign troops on our soil, for drills or anything else.

He told me he has had calls from people about FEMA rounding up people for camps, he denied this too. I didn't ask him about this but he did volunteer the info.

She goes on reporting the person on the phone from FEMA said nothing she was claiming was true.

Quote:

This news was removed from the FEMA home page. He had me search it out while on the phone. I could swear the word troops was in the news flash, but its not now. I believe the news was taken down, edited and archived. Anyone have a copy of the original post by chance?

I hate when that happens.

Quote:

He told me FEMA owns NO camps. None.

I asked, "you must see the info on the internet regarding these camps?" He told me he ..."works all day and had no time to research the videos" and docs proving FEMA owns these camps. I have the feeling his job title may be damage control.

Makes you actually feel sorry for the FEMA folks having to fend off Beck's minions with their questions.

Quote:

I made a call to FEMA at the number posted. From the menu, I selected the news desk. She denied knowing anything about this drill on July 27 to 31. Then after some conversation admitted to knowing about the drill and offered to forward my call to another number.

She has tons of stuff about the FEMA coffins. She has Prison Planet stuff. And she specifically has Glenn Beck's play book summarized in her own writings, in particular that funny coincidence, the dates of the imagined FEMA military exercises with foreign troops that was supposed to occur the same time Genovese was at the base.


I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread are looking at this as a law abiding gun fan who happens to have conservative political views, that was stopped while taking tourist photos at a NG base. When it's clear she had drunk Beck's paranoia flavored Koolaid and was at the base looking for coffins and the New World Order FEMA joint military exercises.

This is not the poster girl for the NRA or the Tea Party here. I agree she could very well have been harmless. But how do you tell the difference between a harmless nut job with an assault rifle and a dangerous one?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Meadmaker, there was a sign that said no photos. Where is your evidence that sign was illegal? Where is your evidence something wasn't officially classified? You claim something classified would have had to be hidden from perimeter sight. Where's your evidence "no photos" is only designated on stuff one cannot see from the fence?

Prove the sign was illegal or give up.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

When it's clear she had drunk Beck's paranoia flavored Koolaid and was at the base looking for coffins and the New World Order FEMA joint military exercises.

And?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Meadmaker, there was a sign that said no photos. Where is your evidence that sign was illegal?

No photos

Where's your evidence the above sign is illegal?

Quote:

Where is your evidence something wasn't officially classified? You claim something classified would have had to be hidden from perimeter sight.

Now, that one's a little easier. I could post a link, but instead I'll cite an authority figure. Me. It's illegal to expose classified material to public view. At least, that's what they told me when I was briefed and when I was debriefed on the programs where a security clearance was required.

However, if I'm not good enough as an authority figure for you, try wikipedia. Their article, "classified information in the United States" is pretty good.

I can neither confirm nor deny that I may have known certain elements of that article prior to their declassification, but most of it has never been classified, and I assume that none of that information is currently classified. Nevertheless, if I had been told about some of that information and it were presented as classified material, I could not discuss my knowledge of it unless I had confirmed from an official source that it had been declassifed, which I haven't.

And if wikipedia isn't good enough, it has cites for the executive orders that currently are in place that detail procedures for classifying data, and protecting that data from public access.

Quote:

Prove the sign was illegal or give up.

Over in another JREF forum, I can't even prove that the holocaust happened, and yet I am convinced it did.

i can read. I can see that 18 USC 795 does not make Nancy Genovese's actions illegal. (That is a slightly different question than whether or not "the sign was illegal", but it is that question that will be relevant in Ms. Genovese's lawsuit.) It is possible that there is some other statute that would make her actions illegal, but I haven't been able to find one. This is a classic "white crow" problem. I have never seen a white crow, and I have looked for them, and I have strong reason to believe that all crows are black. However, the disproof of that belief is trivial. Present a white crow.

Likewise, I have strong reason to believe that there are no statutes that make Nancy Genovese's actions illegal. I have looked for them and I haven't found one. Like white crows, I don't think they exist. However, the disproof of that belief is trivial. Present a statute that makes her actions illegal.

Maybe it will happen during her lawsuit.

[rwguinn]

Quote:

Quote:
Prove the sign was illegal or give up.

Don't have to. The sign is not illegal. I can put up just about any sign I want on property under my control:
"Get off my Yard!"
"Trespassers will be Eaten" (Seen at a Wild animal park)
"No Photography"

they only apply to what occurs ON MY PROPERTY.
Every Military (and Industrial, for that matter) base I have been on has a "No Cameras or Weapons" sign AT THE ENTRANCE. Once you enter the property, you are under the jurisdiction of the property owner, and must follow his rules.
Off the property, you are not subject to the rules of that property. That's why so many photographers use long lenses to capture celebrities on film-to avoid the problems related to violating the "No Trespassing" signs...

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've posted evidence the base commander has legal control over what can be photographed inside the base. None of you has posted evidence it matters where the photographer is standing.

Mead has claimed nothing was visible from the fence that could have been restricted from being photographed. But no basis for 'if it is classified it must be hidden from view' has been established.



As for "so what" re Genovese's being a Beck follower, you are all missing the point there. You think it matters that she listens to a nut job. No, it matters that she was acting on the rantings of a nut job.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I've posted evidence the base commander has legal control over what can be photographed inside the base.

I'm sure you think you have done so.

Quote:

No, it matters that she was acting on the rantings of a nut job.

Why?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

they only apply to what occurs ON MY PROPERTY.

And even then, there are limitations, as I'm sure you know. I have seen "trespassers will be shot" signs, but I don't think the presence of that sign would matter very much during the trial if the property owner actually shoots a trespasser.


In the case of photography on militiary bases, the base commander can restrict photography, but he can't make it a crime to take pictures. Only the legislature can do that.

There's some doubt in my mind about whether he has any authority at all to prevent people outside the base from taking pictures of things on the base. I am extremely confident that he cannot make doing so a crime, but I don't know where the limits of his authority are in terms of confiscating photos or interrogating picture-takers. My not completely uninformed opinion is that he has limited authority to interrogate, and that's all. We might get that clarified when this case goes to trial.

[fromdownunder]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

My not completely uninformed opinion is that he has limited authority to interrogate, and that's all. We might get that clarified when this case goes to trial.

It was the police, not airport officials who stopped, interrogated and siezed Ms Genovese's memory card. Although I understand that Airport Officials did join in the interrogation at one point.

That she was subsequently not charged with anything is where the case gets intersting. But I do think that her subsequent court filing is a little over the top, although it probably contains exaggerated truths, and that $70 million is out of the question.

As you say, nothing more can really be said until the trial, regardless of what power Airport authorities have/have not.

Norm

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And even then, there are limitations, as I'm sure you know. I have seen "trespassers will be shot" signs, but I don't think the presence of that sign would matter very much during the trial if the property owner actually shoots a trespasser.

False analogy, the law supporting the 'no photos' sign was cited.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In the case of photography on militiary bases, the base commander can restrict photography, but he can't make it a crime to take pictures. Only the legislature can do that.

The law already exists, the military has the authority, it's delegated to the base commander. You are making up a straw man that anyone has said the base commander was making laws.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

There's some doubt in my mind about whether he has any authority at all to prevent people outside the base from taking pictures of things on the base. I am extremely confident that he cannot make doing so a crime, but I don't know where the limits of his authority are in terms of confiscating photos or interrogating picture-takers. My not completely uninformed opinion is that he has limited authority to interrogate, and that's all. We might get that clarified when this case goes to trial.

The first thing in this paragraph says it all, the doubt is only in your mind. You have a preexisting belief of what you have a right to do in the US and you are twisting pretty basic stuff to make it confirm your bias.


Which brings us back to the law which you posted yourself, I'm merely quoting it:

Quote:

(a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary. (b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

And reading further down:

Quote:

I [POTUS] hereby define the following as vital military and naval installations or equipment requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto:

All military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which are now classified, designated, or marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as "top secret", "secret", "confidential", or "restricted",

You stopped reading at "confidential", perhaps because you'd read what confirmed your bias, no need to read any further on the issue.


And how is an installation or something located within it designated as "restricted"?
Department of Defense Physical Security Program

Quote:

Definitions:...

DL1.3. Controlled Area. A controlled space extending upward and outward from a specified point. This area is typically designated by a commander or director, wherein sensitive information or operations occur and requires limitations of access....

DL1.12. Restricted Area. An area (land, sea or air) in which there are special restrictive measures employed to prevent or minimize incursions and/or interference, where special security measures are employed to prevent unauthorized entry. Restricted areas may be of different types depending on the nature and varying degree of importance of the security interest, or other matter contained therein. Restricted areas must be authorized by the installation/activity commander/director, properly posted, and shall employ physical security measures. Additionally, Controlled Areas may be established adjacent to Restricted Areas for verification and authentication of personnel....

C3.1. GENERAL

...Access control is an integral and interoperable part of DoD installation physical security programs. Each installation commander/facility director must clearly define, consistent with DoD policy, the access control measures (tailored to local conditions) required to safeguard personnel, facilities, protect capabilities, and accomplish the mission.

C3.2.4. Designating restricted or controlled areas to safeguard property or resources for which the commander is responsible (area designations such as restricted and controlled shall be directed appropriately by the responsible commander to safeguard mission essential property or material).

It is the base commander's responsibility to designate areas having restricted access. And the restrictions, because the US Code, 18 USC 795 - Sec. 795. Photographing and sketching defense installations, include restricting photography without the base commander's permission.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

False analogy, the law supporting the 'no photos' sign was cited.

The law already exists, the military has the authority, it's delegated to the base commander. You are making up a straw man that anyone has said the base commander was making laws.


The first thing in this paragraph says it all, the doubt is only in your mind. You have a preexisting belief of what you have a right to do in the US and you are twisting pretty basic stuff to make it confirm your bias.


Which brings us back to the law which you posted yourself, I'm merely quoting it:

And reading further down:You stopped reading at "confidential", perhaps because you'd read what confirmed your bias, no need to read any further on the issue.


And how is an installation or something located within it designated as "restricted"?
Department of Defense Physical Security Program
It is the base commander's responsibility to designate areas having restricted access. And the restrictions, because the US Code, 18 USC 795 - Sec. 795. Photographing and sketching defense installations, include restricting photography without the base commander's permission.

One barely knows where to begin.It's an interesting interpretation, but not one that is consistent with usage of terms that I have encountered in professional practice.

We'll find out when it goes to trial, and not likely before then. I would still like to see any citation of an informed authority, such as a lawyer with professional experience, that agrees with your interpretations.

Meanwhile, why do you think it is relevant that Nancy Genovese was "acting on the rantings of a nut job?" (Emphasis in original)

[fromdownunder]

I would like one matter cleared up. From the blog:

Quote:

Nancy was questioned on the side of the road for approximately five to six hours, from about 6pm until midnight, denied food or water, and denied the opportunity to use a restroom, all without having received any warnings as to her rights.

My understanding of Miranda is that it is not compulsory to tell a person of their rights, it's just that before they are so advised, that NO statement made by them can be subsequently used in Court.

1. Is this true?
2. Is there a limit as to how long a person can be detained and questioned (without being told of their Miranda roghts) before being arrested?

Norm

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't have to read the Miranda Rights until you charge someone.

And I believe you can be held 72 hours without being charged.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Has it dawned on you, Mailman, that the picture of the guns was in the arrest record and the reporters got the record because of the Freedom Of Information Act? Do you have evidence the photo was "leaked"? Once the case is no longer an ongoing investigation police reports are discoverable.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Its interesting that you claim the photo was from her police file...wouldnt the contents of her memory stick also form part of that police file, simply because the contents would confirm exactly what she was photographing. If the file was released under FOI, why havent we seen the pictures from the memory card?

Quote:

It would seem Genovese called attention to herself:

How, by taking a photo of a brightly coloured helicopter on the side of the road in public space?

Quote:

She was arrested on Thursday, went to court on Friday and this was in Sat's paper.
This is the first story I could find. Yes, he calls her a "Gun Nut" in the headline.

And the relevance is exactly what? All you have done is posted a link to a leftist article that hates Glen Beck, the right, the Tea Party...and this woman.

Quote:

Daily Kos reported "Glenn Beck Fan, Highly Armed, Busted For Casing National Guard Base, Thinking It Was A "FEMA Camp"" the next day, Sunday.

Hahahahahhaaaa....oh tell me you didnt go there

Not sure if you want people to take you seriously or not BUT if you are going to start citing the kooks from the daily kos as some kind of informed reporting then what ever credibility you had left just went leftwards out of the window

Look, the cooks and ding bats at the daily kos have a fatwa out on Glen Beck, The Tea Party, the Right in general and this woman in particular. Its no wonder you seem to be a fan of theirs since they echo the same prejudices you have expressed in these three short pages on this subject.

Quote:

But they did their homework, they didn't just make the stuff up. They found the woman's MySpace Page.

Have you looked at it?

Ok, tell me what Im looking at here? And I need you to tell me because your link is dead.

Quote:

Then there is the FEMA stuff. After a call to FEMA about the foreign troops at their camps:She goes on reporting the person on the phone from FEMA said nothing she was claiming was true.I hate when that happens.

Relevance?

What ever this FEMA is, it is clearly not illegal...and more, she was clearly not charged with what ever this FEMA is.

Quote:

She has tons of stuff about the FEMA coffins. She has Prison Planet stuff.

And what? You clearly follow and read the Daily Kos. Sounds like we have one kook trying to paint someone else as being a kook.

Quote:

I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread are looking at this as a law abiding gun fan who happens to have conservative political views, that was stopped while taking tourist photos at a NG base. When it's clear she had drunk Beck's paranoia flavored Koolaid and was at the base looking for coffins and the New World Order FEMA joint military exercises.

And Im trying to work out how someone like yourself can become so paranoid about the right that it distorts your sense of reality to the point where everyone is an enemy of the state?

Quote:

But how do you tell the difference between a harmless nut job with an assault rifle and a dangerous one?

Ah, see...this is the crux of your problem.

Clearly she as not a nut case, nor was she a terrorist and most importantly, ALL charges against her were dropped.

Therefore, she broke no laws.

Yet, because she is a Glen Beck fan, people on the left, like yourself, have taken it upon themselves to convict her as being guilty WITHOUT any evidence what so ever of that guilt. Again, as I said earlier, the only reason the left has waged religious war against this woman is the simple fact that she listens to Glen Beck.

Sorry, but I have to come back to this one specific point. The very fact that she was released and had ALL charges against her dropped says she broke no laws. You can be a cut and paste lawyer as much as you want BUT you cannot get around the simple fact that all charges against her were dropped. If she was such a dangerously, deranged, rightwing tea bag gun nut, how come all charges against here were dropped?

Id be interested in what your answer is to that question.

Regards

Mailman

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You don't have to read the Miranda Rights until you charge someone.

And I believe you can be held 72 hours without being charged.

A quick search on the intraweb for Miranda rights throws up an interesting dilemma. Its seems possible that all evidence taken down BEFORE the accused rights are read to them could be inadmissible in court.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why all charges were dropped against this woman...because everything taken down was inadmissible?

Regards

Mailman

[Sluggo042]

I vectored into this thread in searching for material on the Nancy Genovese case, having had it called to my attention by a friend.

To catch up, I'd like to offer a few comments, primarily directed at Skeptic Ginger.

First: In post #6, Skeptic Ginger observes that Nancy Genovese, the woman at the center of this case, has been revealed to be a fan of Glenn Beck, and holds other potentially unsavory opinions. Ginger then repeatedly defends the actions of the local authorities agains Ms. Genovese because clearly someone holding such opinions is worthy of suspicion.

This is the United States, and last I checked, people were allowed to have opinions, even irrational ones. I may well agree Mr. Beck to be a rabid fruitbat, and find the logic of his followers suspect. However, while such opinions might make them idiots in my own opinion, they do not make their holders incipient terrorists. Further, it should be noted that the police officer in question would have no idea what political leanings Ms. Genovese might hold, so they couldn't have been a factor in any suspicions he may have had as to her activities that day at the gates of the airfield. Therefore, this information is not particularly relevant to the question at hand. Ginger asks "So in your opinion the police should have had no concerns about this woman's behavior?". No, why should they have had concerns? The authorities wouldn't have known about her political leanings until well after the incident. And even if discovered later, the opinions of Beck and his Tea-baggers have not so far, in my knowledge, been connected to terroristic activity. So, no, I don't think anyone in government should be allowed to make up thought crimes without some actual basis in fact.

Secondly: Skeptic Ginger clearly holds gun owners in low regard, and has apparently predetermined that anyone who could possibly be so gauche to have such an interest should by extension be held in suspicion of terrorist leanings. This is a very interesting argument, and it clearly demonstrates a prejudicial bias on Ginger's part. However, distaste for gun appreciation aside for the moment, the fact that Ms. Genovese was armed is not by itself grounds for suspicion. The photos posted earlier in the discussion show no "assault rifles" - if the police were anxious to demonstrate a threat, wouldn't they be at pains to place such weapons in the forefront? Indeed, the Lawyer's Blog site (admittedly potentially biased in Ms. Genovese's favor) states the guns were in a locked case. New York law makes assault rifles illegal - if Ms. Genovese was so armed, wouldn't that have been an easy first charge to make stick? People unfamiliar with guns often toss terms around inaccurately, so such an error on the part of the news report (where saying 'assault rifle' would sound ever so much more exciting) would not surprise me.

Thirdly: A great deal of the discussion has revolved around photography at a military base. Look at the place on a map, people! This isn't Area 51 we're talking about. This is a general aviation airport which happens to host a Air National Guard station. This means it's a place that anyone who has a pilot's license can freely fly into and over, and anyone can drive into the public side of the base. There may well be part of the grounds cordoned off for the use of the ANG. Not regular Air Force, mind you, but Air National Guard. It's an Air Rescue Wing, i.e. they've got some search and rescue aircraft there. Nothing militarily significant - they certainly wouldn't keep anything meriting military secrecy at a public airport in the middle of a major metro area.

That's not even the real point though. Maybe there are 'No Photography' signs on the fence. But Ms. Genovese was outside the fence, taking photos of a static display helicopter outside the gate of the base. So the existence, or non-existence of signage is moot, because they can't magically extend an anti-photography field outside the base itself - where would the line stop in such a case? She was on public land taking photos of a public space abutting a militarily insignificant instillation hosted on a public airfield. Suspicious? As Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Finally: Skeptic Ginger says: "But I also don't want fear of confronting actually suspicious people to fail to prevent the next mass shooting. This woman's behavior was suspicious. There was no over aggressive policing apparent from the news account". Talking to someone taking some photos to see what they're up to is one thing. According to the Lawyer's Blog reference, this is not what happened. She was detained at the roadside, out in the weather, with no opportunity to eat, drink, or urinate for six hours. She was then detained for four days! I'm not sure what line has to be crossed in your book for policing to become over-aggressive, but that's way over the line in my own.

My best guess: I think the cops went overboard, and, hands caught in the cookie jar, kept doubling down in the hope that their overreaction and pressure would bear fruit. It did not, because there was no fruit to be had. Of course, I cannot prove that from the facts at hand, but her simple story seems far more likely to me than some some sinister soccer mom casing out an ANG base with terroristic intent. In all of the actual terrorist events I've read of, there were clear signs that the perpetrator was unhinged, was dangerous, or held some violent ideology. A predilection for Glenn Beck, however misguided, does not meet these levels of concern. And it especially concerns me when people find it perfectly acceptable for police to harass people with different beliefs than their own. I may believe Beck to be a jerk, but I don't support infringement of civil liberties for him and his followers.

The dangerous thing I have seen in our country is far too many examples of over-zealous law officials harassing photographers who had every right to be pursuing their hobby, often to the extent of quoting fictitious laws to justify their harassment. These emboldened pubic officials are often only too willing to deny citizens their rights under the pretense of 'protecting' us from terrorists. I've also known cops to become very petty when they feel they're being disrespected. I can easily see a small confrontation spinning out of control to the point where a cop might want to show that uppity civilian she's out of line. And when called on such misdeeds, law agencies often seem to cover for each other, up to and including making up false accusations against those who dared oppose them in their righteousness. So, yes, I'm taking all statements from the ANG and local law enforcement personnel involved with very large grains of salt. I can't prove it, but it's the way I'd bet.