Geez, Louise. That article really makes me want to jump on my next flight in a couple of weeks. It does bring up a valid point, I think... where do we draw the line between pre-judging people because of their appearance, and perhaps impinging on their rights because of it, and protecting the lives of 250 people?

Aunty-- perhaps YOU should re-read the article. The photographer in question was a student, not a member of the press. And while he was questioned for a "half hour", there is no mention of him being detained, which commonly means being arrested or held in custody.

Not only that, but press photographers have never been able to go anywhere they wanted in a public facility to photograph what they want. However, in something as public as the locks, being told not to shoot is unexpected. During a stated emergency where people are told to watch for strange behavior-- especially folks taking pictures of things like the locks -- you can expect to be called on it, though.

If the person in question wanted to cause a problem, not providing ID is a sure way to do it. It's kind of like going through security at the airport and not taking off your shoes. Don't do that, and you're sure to get the wand and pat-down treatment. He got in-depth questioning.

Post 9/11, we've heard a lot of complaining that the government should have been able to prevent the hijackings, should have known it was going to happen and "should have done something" to keep it from happening. Now that the government is trying to do just that, there is still complaining.

If checking suspicious behavior isn't a way to "do something", then what is?

To paraphrase Dave Vedder's tag line: "If prejudice is strong, judgment is weak."

Now let's see if I can keep from double posting.

My $.02,

Keith