Restaurant at Sunset

@Anthony Lambert: A little different situation I think than the streets of NYC, or Houston. I'd make at least a couple of distinctions, but the first one is definitional: "terrorism" is using violence against a CIVILIAN population in order to effect a change in government or its policies; as much as our media might like to hype it otherwise, attacking a military occupation force is not terrorism. Of course it's more complicated than a simple analogy, and with a long history, but the British Army in Northern Ireland was something more like the US in Iraq or the Israeli Army in Palestine. When Somali kids were spotting for attacks on US troops, they weren't practicing terrorism.

If the IRA drive-by was preceded by taking photographs, then it is highly relevant that they were not caught doing so. Perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that I don't know of a single instance where terrorists have been "caught" taking photographs. Again, since the IRA members were Irish, the situation is a little different, but it is highly unlikely that a Middle Eaastern terrorist is going to stand around openly taking photos when it would be easy to take them without being seen.

Fiinally, I'm assuming that you're not a terrorist, so having your film or memory card taken isn't going to stop a terrorist attack. Furthermore, taking photos from public places is not --yet-- illegal, so there would be no basis for arresting or detaining someone taking photos (which means such action would not stop an attack --though it could possibly redirect it), and in fact, the police telling you (at least in this country) to hand over a film or memory card, or erase an image, are THEMSELVES guilty of breaking the law. We could, by the democratic process, make photography illegal, but I'm 100% sure that doing so will not stop a single terrorist attack.

Of course, in this case, we're merely talking about an hysterical woman and the police breaking the law, perhaps out of prejudice, but probably out of ignorance. Personally, I would not have shown this woman my images or handed over any film. Though I would have resented it, I would have shown the police my images to remove any cause they might have for being suspicious, but I might well have refused to turn over a memory card or a roll of film to them --and forced them to make an illegal arrest.

@MadScientist: I agree, though I'm not sure how "normal" would be defined. But the problem is two fold. If we had police that actually knew the law and acted accordingly, then incidents like these would end at the first contact with the police, and would contribute to the education of the public. I read of a case in Canada where a father was taking photos at a school, at the school's invitation, and some nut walking by (who, btw, had no connection with the school or children himself) accused him of being a child molester --merely because he was taking photos of children on the school playground. In spite of being informed that he was there with the school's permission, this nut called the police and agitated for the photographer to be arrested. In this particular case, after the cop talked to the school authorities, he realized he was dealing with a nut and the nut was the one who got arrested --a consistent result like this would go a long way in preventing stuff like this from becoming normal.

I doubt the "majority" of parents would act the way the woman in the article did. However, if just one in ten does, or even one in one-hundred, then you're at risk for who-knows-what if you take photos in public places. I think it's already "normal" enough that I avoid taking photos that include children because it's an emotional issue that tends to subvert all rational thought. I don't know about Germany, but in this country, just taking a photo of a stranger in public can lead to physical assault. Last year a college kid on vacation in Hawaii was beaten to death for taking a photo of an adult. The "terrorist" paranoia is a little different: because I'm an old white guy I can probably avoid Gitmo by showing the cops my photos and being cooperative.

@Observing: San Antonio has a more cosmopolitan feel to it than most other Texas cities (some of which is imported from Mexico via Spain); and although it's primarily a "tourist" life, it does have a vibrant life-after-dark downtown --like cities in Europe. Outside of perhaps a few large cities like New York, San Francisco, and Chicago, there is no real city life in the US like there is in most European, or Canadian, cities --though it seems that perhaps that is beginning to change a little.

The Nanny State stuff in the UK scares me because I have the sense that whatever happens over there is eventually coming over here --with perhaps, some vice versa. Even though there was a Victorian England I tend to think that the extremes here may turn out to be much worse than the extremes there because this country is so much more violent by nature, and has long had a very Puritanical streak fueled by fundamentalist religious impulses --especially as compared to the relatively more inclusionary and mainstream Church of England.

@sherri: Hey, I need your help. I went to your vfxy page and I just can't figure out how to make your blog a favorite. I feel kind of stupid, but I've looked all over and can't find the right button.

@danthro: Well, I'd imagine that was just because they stepped out of their "ballot access" zones, perhaps while traveling between "free speech zones." However, I do think you're a little behind the times --"public property?"-- what's that? That sounds downright "socialistic," unless by "public property" you mean taxpayer financed gifts for large corporations, which is now called "capitalism." Taxpayer financing is only "socialism" if it goes to individuals for things like medical treatment and food.

@JoeB: Well, I might be a smart-ass and say no, they're still running the country --into the ground.

@Anthony Lambert: I find the ignorant American remark very amusing, in light of the fact that I have personally heard the British as an occupying force attitude voiced by a number of people who actually live, or have lived, in Ireland. This is also the attitude conveyed in a number of films made either by Irishmen or Brits, such as: Hidden Agenda (by Ken Loach, a Brit); The Crying Game and Breakfast on Pluto (by Neil Jordan --an Irishman), and Bloody Sunday, by Paul Greengrass (also a Brit), which deals with the British masscare of Irish civliians --not to mention musical treatment of the same notion by Irish bands like The Pogues and U2. These lyrics, from the Pogues song, Streets of Sorrow, clearly do not consider British forces to be "peacekeepers":

May the whores of the empire lie awake in their beds
And sweat as they count out the sins on their heads
While over in Ireland eight more men lie dead
Kicked down and shot in the back of the head

In point of fact, British forces were "invited" by the British aligned government of Northern Ireland, not the "Irish people." Furthermore, Britain placed N.I. under direct rule in 1972, appointed British ministers to run the Irish State, and required all legislation to pass through the British Parliament by orders in council. Generally speaking, a government that is merely "peacekeeping" doesn't take control of the country they're keeping the peace in --or police their legislature.

Finally, the situation that led to the condition of British troops in N.I. was the product of years of abusive British rule, including the economic rape of Ireland by British absentee landlords who, doing the patato famine in the 19th century, continued to export food from Ireland for their own profit while the Irish starved to death in large numbers. Here I quote the British historian Cecil Woodham-Smith:

"...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland were dying of starvation."

Irish terrorism was the product of over a century of British misrule and abuse. And let's not forget that a lot of the terrorism before 9/11 had it roots in European colonialism.

@Alun Lambert: Well, it was if you're talking about what I think you're talking about. I'm certainly not saying the IRA didn't kill civilians, because they did, and got a significant amount of their financing from the good ole' USA. In fact, if you used our anti-terror criteria, the RAF would have been well within its rights to bomb Boston.

All I said is that "terrorism" is the intentional targeting of civilians, and therefore, attacking military positions is not "terrorism." So, for example, when a suicide bomber blew up a US Marine barracks in Lebanon back when Reagan was our president, it was not "terrorism," but an act of war that was just as "legitimate" as the US attacking Iraq or the UK attacking the Falklands. On the other hand, by definition, what the RAF did to Dresden, and the USAAF did to Tokyo during WWII,were acts of terrorism (and I might add, recognized as such at the time by officials like General Curtis LeMay and Robert McNamara). In the case of the IRA then, most of what it did is properly called "terrorism," but some of it, like attacking military barracks --wasn't.