Lawyer: Russian immigrant didn't mean to photograph Picatinny [Archive]

bmattock

04-04-2008, 07:25

http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/COMMUNITIES43/804040347/1005/NEWS01

ROCKAWAY TWP. -- The lawyer for the Russian immigrant charged with unlawfully photographing Picatinny Arsenal said Thursday that the incident was a misunderstanding and that his client didn't realize he was pointing his camera in the direction of the Army base when he was arrested.

Attorney Benjamin Kelsen of Teaneck said his client -- Denis S. Ayzenberg, 26, of Lawrenceville, Ga. -- is an orthodox Jew who immigrated to the U.S. about a decade ago and is enrolled in graduate school in Georgia.

Kelsen said that Ayzenberg, whose English is "very, very accented" and was traveling with a fellow Russian immigrant, had difficulty communicating with police officers who swarmed their parked sport utility vehicle on Route 15 South on Sunday afternoon.

The confrontation took place about two miles from Picatinny's entrance, according to Kelsen, and about a half-hour after both were ordered away from the 6,500-acre base.

"Honest to God, he didn't realize the base extended that far," Kelsen said.

Ayzenberg was charged with violating a federal statute prohibiting unauthorized photographs of a military installation. He faces up to a year in prison and a fine.

Ayzenberg's friend was not charged. Police did not release his name.

A phone call to Picatinny Arsenal and an e-mail to the U.S. Department of Defense were not returned Thursday. Rockaway Township police and the county prosecutor's office, which aided in the investigation, have deferred comment to federal authorities.

Ayzenberg, who was released by police Monday morning, has returned to Georgia, according to his attorney.

Kelsen, in an interview Thursday about the much-publicized incident, said that Ayzenberg was visiting friends in Passaic County last weekend when someone -- Kelsen didn't know the name -- suggested driving to the area near Picatinny.

"He had been asked by somebody, who said they lived in the area years ago, what does it look like today," Kelsen said.

Ayzenberg and his friend pulled into Picatinny after seeing the entrance sign. Kelsen said his client later explained that it looked like a good "tourist attraction."

After being told to leave, they exited onto Route 15 and drove away before parking on the highway shoulder -- where Ayzenberg resumed taking photos, Kelsen said.

Police who converged on the parked vehicle allegedly saw that Ayzenberg was concealing a digital camera under his jacket. Other items that could be used for surveillance, including a laptop, were on the floor of the vehicle.

Ayzenberg, though, didn't realize the wooded trees in the background of his photo were actually part of the base, according to his lawyer. Ayzenberg's beard and white head covering also might have led authorities to suspect he fit a terrorist profile , Kelsen said.

"He has a beard and a type of head covering belonging to a certain kind of Hasidic sect -- a large, white-knit type of head covering," Kelsen said

"The whole thing is really amusing," said Kelsen, who is a rabbi.

"He's not a terrorist. He's an orthodox Jew who's an amateur photographer," he added.

Ayzenberg and his friend were held at police headquarters until about 5 a.m. Monday, Kelsen said. Ayzenberg, by that point, was terrified according to his lawyer.

"He grew up in the former Soviet Union. There was still KGB at that point. He was very, very nervous," Kelsen said.

The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force allowed both to be released after determining that neither had any terrorist connections.

Ayzenberg is scheduled to appear in court in May, Kelsen said.

Funny, there are a lot of photos of Picatinny on Google. And not photos of trees taken from 2 miles away, either.

And a laptop is now a 'terrorist' tool. I see.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.picinnovation.org/aerial1a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.picinnovation.org/arsenal.html&h=284&w=524&sz=78&hl=en&start=1&sig2=lE4SZOvLnFzxnDMyJumVhg&um=1&tbnid=7K9VB_J56qagdM:&tbnh=72&tbnw=132&ei=HTr2R4_WDJfiigGRqL2NCA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpicatinny%2Barsenal%26um%3D1%26hl%3De n%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

Welcome back, Soviet Union. We missed you.

ferider

04-04-2008, 07:42

Yeah. It's horrible.

What a depressing place this (RFF) has become.

feenej

04-04-2008, 08:00

Sic infit/so it begins.

The effort to get Ukraine to join NATO went over like a lead baloon.

xayraa33

04-04-2008, 08:26

you cannot trust anyone these days.

steamer

04-04-2008, 09:05

Russian immigrants must feel right at home in the US these days.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 07:24

It doesn't matter where he's from, he did something illegal. He was taking pictures of a military research and development center (use some common sense here??) and was asked to leave by the guards. You would think if you were asked to leave by the guards that you should just GO AWAY, right? Not drive down the street for a minute, get out, and keep taking pictures. Again, common sense here.

And yes, there are pictures of Picatinny on the internet - pictures approved by the Security Office for public release. Not pictures taken by random people skulking around the base after they were already asked to leave by the guards. It doesn't matter whether he's Russian or Iranian or Polish or Swahili, it's illegal to do what he did, for good reason.

Besides, how do you think all the people at Picatinny would feel if they found out that some guy was taking pictures of the base and he wasn't even prosecuted? Nice example to set for anyone else who wants to take illegal pictures, no? Even the fact that they did not leave when they were asked by the guards is bad enough. When the guards ask you to leave, you GO.

Bottom line - this guy did something stupid and illegal. If he did it accidentally, then he'll be let off the hook, or probably have to pay a small fine. I'm surprised that anyone could find that to be some kind of problem or injustice.

nikonhswebmaster

04-07-2008, 07:37

bmattock

04-07-2008, 07:42

It all sounded unfair -- until his lawyer mentioned that he drove into the place, was asked to leave and not take photos, and then he continues.

We all know this kind of stubborn guy who will not take no for an answer.

"After being told to leave, they exited onto Route 15 and drove away before parking on the highway shoulder -- where Ayzenberg resumed taking photos, Kelsen said."

He was told to leave and he did. Apparently, he was not told he could not take photos from outside the property either.

Again - there are lots of photos of Picatinny Arsenal on the web - even photos from inside the Arsenal, even posted by the military for the world to see. His photos, the ones he got arrested for, were photos of TREES on the base taken from 2 miles away, according to the story. His Orthodox Jewish dress and beard got him labeled a 'terrorist' and his laptop became a 'could have been used for surveillance' device. Well, I've got a laptop and a digital camera, and a beard. So if I put on a Kippa, am I a terrorist now?

Something very disturbing about this story.

nikonhswebmaster

04-07-2008, 07:49

So if I put on a Kippa, am I a terrorist now?

Something very disturbing about this story.

It all depends, all of us deal with our fear of terrorists the best we can. I admit all religious zealots make me nervous, even the ones in suits on TV running for office.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 07:58

"After being told to leave, they exited onto Route 15 and drove away before parking on the highway shoulder -- where Ayzenberg resumed taking photos, Kelsen said."

Picatinny is located ON Route 15. The perimeter of the base runs ALONG Route 15 for quite a ways. It's not like he drove away and down another street. He went out the main gate, which is right off of Route 15, drove down the street along the perimeter of the base for like one minute (2 miles is not a long way), got out, and kept taking pictures (the truck gate is another few miles down the road). It doesn't matter what he was wearing or what nationality he's from, this is extremely suspicious behavior and he needs to be prosecuted for it. He was asked to leave the base and he got out along the perimeter and kept taking pictures, he did NOT go away.

Again - there are lots of photos of Picatinny Arsenal on the web - even photos from inside the Arsenal, even posted by the military for the world to see.

As I said, these are photos approved by the Security Office as not containing sensitive or classified material. Taking photos of the base's perimeter can be a big problem because it could indicate that he's looking for a way for someone to illegally enter the base without going through the gate (taking photos of potential weak points in the fence, etc). This is potentially a big deal -- I hope that he was doing it by accident and that he demonstrates this in court but we can't just let this sort of thing go without doing anything about it.

bmattock

04-07-2008, 08:01

Picatinny is located ON Route 15. The perimeter of the base runs ALONG Route 15 for quite a ways. It's not like he drove away and down another street. He went out the main gate, which is right off of Route 15, drove down the street along the perimeter of the base for like one minute (2 miles is not a long way), got out, and kept taking pictures (the truck gate is another few miles down the road). It doesn't matter what he was wearing or what nationality he's from, this is extremely suspicious behavior and he needs to be prosecuted for it. He was asked to leave the base and he got out along the perimeter and kept taking pictures, he did NOT go away.

He was asked to leave the base and he did. It is not illegal to take photographs from public property. There are lots of photographs of Picatinny on the web, some from the military itself - so apparently, photos of Picatinny are not illegal.

If he 'needs to be prosecuted', I would ask for what crime.

Reading skills are important. He was asked to LEAVE THE BASE. He did. That he failed to 'go away' is immaterial - he was not asked to 'go away'.

bmattock

04-07-2008, 08:06

It all depends, all of us deal with our fear of terrorists the best we can. I admit all religious zealots make me nervous, even the ones in suits on TV running for office.

Being nervous is one thing. Arresting and prosecuting people for wearing religious garb that makes us nervous is quite another.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 08:11

He was asked to leave the base and he did. It is not illegal to take photographs from public property. There are lots of photographs of Picatinny on the web, some from the military itself - so apparently, photos of Picatinny are not illegal.

I'm going to assume you wrote that before I edited my post to add the second quote. Please read the second portion of my post above -- it addresses approval of photos and the problem with pictures taken from the base's perimeter.

Reading skills are important. He was asked to LEAVE THE BASE. He did. That he failed to 'go away' is immaterial - he was not asked to 'go away'.

He was asked to leave and cease taking photographs. He didn't do either; he stayed around the base's perimeter (supposedly he didn't know that? Well I hope he didn't know, and that he just did it by accident) and continued to take pictures.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 08:14

Being nervous is one thing. Arresting and prosecuting people for wearing religious garb that makes us nervous is quite another.
That's just silly. There are many people who work at Picatinny and wear such 'religious garb' including turbans and all sorts of things. It's a federal installation -- hiring minorities is common.

xayraa33

04-07-2008, 08:30

what if the guy disguised himself as a "swede", I'll bet he would have gotten away with it. :D

nikonhswebmaster

04-07-2008, 08:56

Being nervous is one thing. Arresting and prosecuting people for wearing religious garb that makes us nervous is quite another.

I am in favor of arrest, starting with those suit guys, I never really trust anyone wearing a tie.

I am serious about the ties. :cool:

nikonhswebmaster

04-07-2008, 09:01

what if the guy disguised himself as a "swede", I'll bet he would have gotten away with it. :D

Has not always worked for me, but you are right, I would advise all terrorists to disguise themselves as Swedish tourists. The blond girlfriends will really throw everyone off.

Given the security at most installations all you will need is a wig.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 09:04

what if the guy disguised himself as a "swede", I'll bet he would have gotten away with it.

I doubt it. Anti-terrorism training, which I'm sure Picatinny cops, being on a federal military installation, are required to attend, clearly states that threats come from all "nationalities," including Americans. It's not about what they're wearing or what they look like (barring like some guy with a rocket launcher on his back or something obviously), it's about what they're doing, when, and why. Again I hope the guy is innocent but we can't just let people take pictures of base perimeters without at least detaining them after they've been asked to leave.

bmattock

04-07-2008, 10:29

Again I hope the guy is innocent but we can't just let people take pictures of base perimeters without at least detaining them after they've been asked to leave.

You seem not to want to comprehend what the story said. He was told to leave the base, and he did.

He was not 'detained', he was arrested. And charged with a crime.

"The confrontation took place about two miles from Picatinny's entrance, according to Kelsen, and about a half-hour after both were ordered away from the 6,500-acre base."

Just to make this clear: That's TWO MILES away from the entrance he had previously driven in and then out of, and a HALF HOUR later.

Further:

"Ayzenberg, though, didn't realize the wooded trees in the background of his photo were actually part of the base, according to his lawyer."

Photographs of trees in the background of a photo that happen to grow on a military base are now illegal?

I took lots of photos at the Air Show at Selfridge ANGB lasts summer - including shots from inside the hangers! They're on Flickr - why have I not been arrested?

I'm sorry to keep hammering this home, but you continue to post as though something other than what happened occurred. Unless the news story is incorrect, you are interpreting very differently from what it clearly says.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 10:49

Just to make this clear: That's TWO MILES away from the entrance he had previously driven in and then out of, and a HALF HOUR later.

Like I said, it was still along the perimeter. If he really didn't know that, then that sucks for him, and I hope he is presumed innocent and the charges are dropped. The problem is as I've already described above -- taking pictures of the perimeter can be a serious security issue, especially after being told not to.

I took lots of photos at the Air Show at Selfridge ANGB lasts summer - including shots from inside the hangers! They're on Flickr - why have I not been arrested?

You didn't do it illegally. Guards did not ask you not to.

I'm sorry to keep hammering this home, but you continue to post as though something other than what happened occurred. Unless the news story is incorrect, you are interpreting very differently from what it clearly says.

His lawyer says the photographer didn't know, and that he was just taking pictures of trees. If that's true, then I feel sorry for the guy. But maybe it's not true. Maybe he was taking pictures of the base perimeter. He already was told to leave the base and stop taking pictures, yet he drove down the road right next to the base, in between the main gate and the truck gate, and started taking pictures again. Should we really just say ok, he says he didn't mean any harm, let's let him go? It seems like you're taking what the lawyer said to be truth, rather than looking at the implications of what the guy actually did and under what circumstances. Maybe the lawyer's telling the truth, but maybe not. The guy was taking pictures of the perimeter of a military base after being told not to, so the cops take him down to the station, let him go, and now he's being charged for illegally photographing a military installation. What about that is wrong? I guess I don't understand where you're coming from because I don't see the problem.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 11:05

But we all know thats not how it works in the real world? Dont come here and say that they dont pre judge people with brown skin long beard and "typical" terrorist clothes?

You're absolutely right, but I still think that this guy would have been arrested regardless of clothing and race.

bmattock

04-07-2008, 11:10

Like I said, it was still along the perimeter. If he really didn't know that, then that sucks for him, and I hope he is presumed innocent and the charges are dropped. The problem is as I've already described above -- taking pictures of the perimeter can be a serious security issue, especially after being told not to.

Sigh. Again. He was told to leave. I did not read where he was told not to take photos. He did leave. You keep changing the conditions of the encounter to make it seem he did something wrong.

You didn't do it illegally. Guards did not ask you not to.

He was charged with the 'crime' of taking photos of a military installation. That does not become 'not a crime' depending on circumstances. It either is or is not a crime.

And again - guards did NOT ask him not to. According to the story.

His lawyer says the photographer didn't know, and that he was just taking pictures of trees. If that's true, then I feel sorry for the guy. But maybe it's not true. Maybe he was taking pictures of the base perimeter.

I drove past the Selfridge perimeter on Saturday. I saw no signs saying I cannot take photos of it. I am tempted to drop by again and take some photos to see what happens. Either it is or it is not a crime to take photos of a military base's perimeter.

He already was told to leave the base and stop taking pictures, yet he drove down the road right next to the base, in between the main gate and the truck gate, and started taking pictures again.

He was told to leave. If you see in the story where he was told to quit taking photos, please point that out to me. Otherwise, I think you are making that part up, because I do not read that in the story. Maybe I'm missing it.

Should we really just say ok, he says he didn't mean any harm, let's let him go? It seems like you're taking what the lawyer said to be truth, rather than looking at the implications of what the guy actually did and under what circumstances.

I am reading the news story, which may or may not be the truth. I am disturbed because taking photos of trees that happen to be on a military base is a 'federal crime' when photos of the base itself, including the buildings and parts thereof, are on the web for all to see.

Maybe the lawyer's telling the truth, but maybe not. The guy was taking pictures of the perimeter of a military base after being told not to, so the cops take him down to the station, let him go, and now he's being charged for illegally photographing a military installation. What about that is wrong? I guess I don't understand where you're coming from because I don't see the problem.

I guess because you seem to think he was told not to take photos and I don't read that - I read that he was told to leave and did.

And let's just be clear. If I am in a store, for example, and a guard tells me to leave - I have to go. If I leave the property, he can't very well have me arrested because he told me to 'leave the area'. The store is the extent of his jurisdiction - no one can force me to 'leave the area' on public property.

This guy was told to leave the base. He did. He then took photos from outside the base (he had not been told not to, as far as I can see) and the base appeared in the background. You complain that he did not clear out when told to - well, he left the base - the MP has no authority to tell him to leave the entire area.

I was an MP once. I could have ordered a civilian off the base, but I could not have ordered them to leave the nearby city. I did not have that authority. Neither did these guards.

jan normandale

04-07-2008, 11:18

This is a very interesting thread. A new member has one hundred percent of his posts on this topic. Hmmm who are you JRobbins?

I want to know why the terrorists now have front page billing? What ever happened to the communists? Someone should be looking into this slippage. Get someone on this issue of overlooking communists right away is my suggestion.

BTW : terrorist alert factoid. No act of terror has ever been directly linked to a photographer.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 11:20

He was told to leave. If you see in the story where he was told to quit taking photos, please point that out to me. Otherwise, I think you are making that part up, because I do not read that in the story. Maybe I'm missing it.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/03/31/2-detained-near-picatinny-weapons-arsenal-department-of-defense-analyzing-photos/

It says partway down:
A Picatinny policeman saw the two men taking pictures near the front gate of the Army base about 4 p.m. Sunday, the base commander Brig. Gen. William Phillips said this morning. The officer told the men, who had asked where the PX was, that it is against the law to take pictures of the post, a weapons research and development facility in Rockaway Township, and asked them to leave.

The men left, but were stopped a short time later on Route 15 north after the Picatinny officer saw them continuing to take photographs.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 11:26

BTW : terrorist alert factoid. No act of terror has ever been directly linked to a photographer.

Information comes from somewhere. Vulnerabilities are analyzed and exploited. I know that sounds overly dramatic, but we can't just allow someone to continue taking pictures of a military base after being asked not to. I just don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

minoltist7

04-07-2008, 11:32

Feels like home :-)
In Russia I was detained 3 times by police for photographing railway stations and objects.
And motivation is the same - everybody with camera is a terrorist or foreign agent. This paranoia increased significantly last 3-4 years.
One fellow photograper said: "When you drive a car, you become a source of danger to surrounding world. When you are with camera in your hands, the world become danger for you"

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 11:33

In Russia I was detained 3 times by police for photographing railway stations and objects.
And motivation is the same - everybody with camera is a terrorist or foreign agent. This paranoia increased significantly last 3-4 years.

No, the motivation is not the same. This guy was asked to stop taking photographs first, and continued to do so.

Creagerj

04-07-2008, 11:36

My feeling is that just because something is a crime doesn't mean that it should be a crime. What is the difference between looking at the military base and taking a picture of it? Don't tell me that the military is foolish enough to place sensitive areas of their base within view from public property. This case is absurd.

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 11:46

What is the difference between looking at the military base and taking a picture of it?

Because you can take pictures back to your commanding officer and use them to analyze weaknesses and create strategies. Do you think it's as effective to go back and describe the entire perimeter actually as you saw it? Are you really going to remember exactly where the trees where that might block a VBIED? I'm not saying that anyone would ever send a VBIED into Picatinny, but the point is that pictures freeze the image exactly as it is, much better than anyone could communicate through voice.

Don't tell me that the military is foolish enough to place sensitive areas of their base within view from public property.

Sure they do - the entire perimeter of any base is "sensitive" in a manner of speaking; of course you won't see something classified, but you may see a bend in the fence, an animal ditch that someone could crawl through to get beneath the fence, or anything that could allow an intruder to get into the base uninvited. The photos allow you to take the information back to your buddies and piece together the best way to get in, whether it be just for the thrill or because you actually intend to harm someone or steal information.

varjag

04-07-2008, 12:19

Arvay

04-07-2008, 13:01

I wonder if it was a "any-other-country" immigrant would it be such seriously discussed here?

Of course ALL Russian immigrants (that means they are no Russian citizens any longer) use to walk around secret american military bases acompanied with specially dressed in terrorist way orthodox jewish priests to draw no attention to them.
And only sharp MPs can not see the difference mixing Moslems and Jews.
It's not a suprise as the US Commander-in-Chief often mixes Austria and Australia...

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 13:02

OK, for you SoF and Eye Spy subscribers out here, have a look (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=no&geocode=&q=picatinny&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.02306,82.265625&ie=UTF8&ll=40.932514,-74.53625&spn=0.003842,0.010042&t=h&z=17). Oh noes, terrorists now can have an aerial plan of the arsenal with car-sized level of detail! Shoot Google down quick!

Sure, google has aerial photos; those are legal. That doesn't show you how you might be able to get into the base uninvited, and it doesn't show you what targets would be best to attack, or anything at all really except for where the locations of a few buildings are.

Besides, terrorists now found out that targets that hurt most are not vaults, arsenals, nuclear plants and other "objects of national security". Blowing up a hospital, a subway station, an office building, or taking hostage a school full of children is what shatters societies

Regardless of whether or not that's true, it doesn't mean that this guy wasn't looking for a breach in Picatinny's perimeter. Guard told him it was unlawful, he kept doing it. Now he's getting charged for exactly what he did. It's that simple. If you're trying to say that the rule itself is stupid, see below.

and also much easier to implement than attacking a remote territory full of trained, armed people.

Right. Because we have security measures to keep people from getting into the post uninvited.

Get real, you can't rely on obscurity in this day of age. And pathetic security measures like that are unlikely going to prevent future terror attacks.

It's not something to be relied on, but it helps. At the very least, in this case, this guy was already informed by the guards that he was not legally allowed to take pictures, yet he continued. That's just weird. Why would someone do that? Maybe he couldn't speak the language, maybe he didn't realize what he was doing, or maybe he was deliberately trying to gain information about the post perimeter so that he could cause harm, or give the information to someone else who could then cause harm. It's not like military bases are suddenly "not targets" just because it's easier to bomb a school.

Pitxu

04-07-2008, 13:08

Besides, terrorists now found out that targets that hurt most are not vaults, arsenals, nuclear plants and other "objects of national security". Blowing up a hospital, a subway station, an office building, or taking hostage a school full of children is what shatters societies, and also much easier to implement than attacking a remote territory full of trained, armed people.

You're quite right Eugene.

"Terror" is only effective when aimed at civilians.

Blowing one of your own boats up in the bay of Tonkin will provoke some emotion in the folks back home, but there's nothing like bringing a building down in a civilian populated area on home ground. That really gets people running round like chickens with their heads cut off.

shimo-kitasnap

04-07-2008, 13:11

I thought we are allowed to photograph whatever we want as long as it is out in a public place. Was he inside a military base? That's really funny because I took a bunch of pictures of Yokota Air Force Base in Japan when I went there to play a football game when I was in high school. I was wandering around taking pics of various things, one of which was a fighter jet on display. Nobody arrested me.

Arvay

04-07-2008, 13:15

Pitxu

04-07-2008, 13:22

A new member has one hundred percent of his posts on this topic. Hmmm who are you JRobbins?

Twelve posts in one day in this thread.

Could it be that JRobbins is working for the Bush administration?

DougFord

04-07-2008, 13:32

God Bless you JRobbins where ever you are.

You’re a breath of fresh air around here.

As you can see this board has their share of PC individuals that would prejudice otherwise good people just because of their ethnicity and/or the way they choose to dress.
After all, wouldn’t it be much easier and expedient just to listen to a defendants’ lawyer’s comments to determine whether a defendant is or is not guilty of a crime? :rolleyes:

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 14:28

I was wandering around taking pics of various things, one of which was a fighter jet on display. Nobody arrested me.

Once again, and I've already said this before but I'll say it again, no one asked you to stop. This guy wasn't just randomly taking pictures, the guards already told him it was unlawful once before but he kept doing it. I feel like a broken record, I don't know how many times I've said this, and I still don't understand how this could be misunderstood.

Twelve posts in one day in this thread.

This is the first time I've been to this forum. I noticed the thread on google while reading articles about the Picatinny incident.

Could it be that JRobbins is working for the Bush administration?

Huh?

That's because you were not in a company of Russian immigrant for sure. Otherwise...

Again, it doesn't matter what race he was, why are you so hung up on that? Maybe you've had different experiences than I have but if someone breaks the law, he breaks the law. They're not charging him for "being a terrorist." Sure there is plenty of racial profiling in this country but this is a pretty clear case of "you were told it was unlawful, but you kept doing it" and I don't see how race plays into that.

nikonhswebmaster

04-07-2008, 14:52

These are very old laws, passed in the '50s.

"(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."

Arvay

04-07-2008, 15:05

Again, it doesn't matter what race he was, why are you so hung up on that? Maybe you've had different experiences than I have but if someone breaks the law, he breaks the law. They're not charging him for "being a terrorist." Sure there is plenty of racial profiling in this country but this is a pretty clear case of "you were told it was unlawful, but you kept doing it" and I don't see how race plays into that.

I am not hung up, but I'm Russian. Not immigrant. Maybe not yet as nobody knows all the life curves.
But few things show tendentiousness of the article itself :
1. I say that if immigrant lives in the US, he is not Russian immigrant. He is US (or any other country) citizen/going to become soon.
2. I asked whether any other immigrant will make such a noise or this is Russians' prerogative?
3. Don't you think its weird being "a Russian immigrant' to come to the military base to take pictures for the purpose of intelligence?
4. Do you really beleive all that crap being broadcasted and printed for the purpose of increasing the circulation?
All the questions are rhitorical of cource. I do not need answers. But probably a grown up person with wide view should ask these question himself immediately after reading such a newsbomb

PS I do not beleive that smth is prohibited untill I have a documentary confirmation. Otherwise I have to sit at home and look at the window how life goes by...

JRobbins

04-07-2008, 15:43

I do not need answers.

Ok, but here are some anyway.

1. I say that if immigrant lives in the US, he is not Russian immigrant. He is US (or any other country) citizen/going to become soon.

Nah, my wife is an immigrant and she is not planning to ever become a U.S. citizen. She is happy to stay a permanent resident so she can retain all of her other citizenships. In terms of the article, they probably defined the guy as Russian because people were asking whether he was Iraqi or Iranian, so it became important to specify for clarity (before reading the article I had heard that he was Iranian from two different people). Of course that's just a conjecture.

2. I asked whether any other immigrant will make such a noise or this is Russians' prerogative?

Why wouldn't someone of another race make "such noise?" Someone tried to illegally photograph the perimeter of a military research and development facility. Again, why would race matter? I'm sure if it was an Iraqi or Iranian it would be a bigger deal, yes. But Russian? No, same as any other.

3. Don't you think its weird being "a Russian immigrant' to come to the military base to take pictures for the purpose of intelligence?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Again, what does being a Russian immigrant have to do with it?

4. Do you really beleive all that crap being broadcasted and printed for the purpose of increasing the circulation?

Circulation of what? All of what crap? I hadn't heard or read a single thing about this until my friend told me about it yesterday. Since then, the only articles I've read have been online and I can't even remember what websites I read them on.

Socke

04-07-2008, 15:49

This is the first time I've been to this forum. I noticed the thread on google while reading articles about the Picatinny incident.

Ah!

Ok, in case you haven't realised by now, this is a photography related forum.

I took lots of pictures in naval installations back in the 80s, even in naval ships.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. President Thomas Jefferson 1743—1826 ...

Pitxu

04-07-2008, 15:54

I hadn't heard or read a single thing about this until my friend told me about it yesterday. Since then, the only articles I've read have been online and I can't even remember what websites I read them on.

I can't see why you would feel so strongly about this "affair" that you have to keep repeating yourself.
Your friend told you yesterday, you read about it on the web, then you felt you had to come here and tell us your opinion.
What are you trying to achieve?

"Beware the politico-military corporation". Eisenhower.

cosmonot

04-07-2008, 16:10

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. President Thomas Jefferson 1743—1826 ...

Well just remember that we're talking about happenings within the great state of NJ, where it's still illegal to pump gas into your own car. That's a freedom we've already given up. :eek:

Also consider another story that was recently the news, an hour or so south of the Arsenal.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpU78Fwu6-swpC3MuWomEA9WYcCQD8VOLHS00

I gotta say that as a civilian that's spent some time working on a military base behind several guarded checkpoints, both the MP's and contractors providing base security were very professional. They usually are very understanding when it comes to people that don't "know" how to act on base, but generally don't give more than one warning.

Socke

04-07-2008, 16:17

Also consider another story that was recently the news, an hour or so south of the Arsenal.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpU78Fwu6-swpC3MuWomEA9WYcCQD8VOLHS00

Time to ban personal owned guns, isn't it?

Everybody would be much safer with stricter gun laws.

Pitxu

04-07-2008, 16:22

Time to ban personal owned guns, isn't it?

Everybody would be much safer with stricter gun laws.

I heard Charlton Heston just died.

I wonder if he will be buried with a gun in his "cold, dead hand".

Al Patterson

04-07-2008, 16:25

Time to ban personal owned guns, isn't it?

Everybody would be much safer with stricter gun laws.

Just what I want, a world where only criminals and police own guns. I have a right to own a gun for MY protection. If you don;t that's too damn bad....

Socke

04-07-2008, 16:31

Just what I want, a world where only criminals and police own guns. I have a right to own a gun for MY protection. If you don;t that's too damn bad....

Lukily I have a right to own guns and take pictures ;)
Although I have to admit that some people are uneasy because of both of my rights.

cosmonot

04-07-2008, 16:35

Just what I want, a world where only criminals and police own guns. I have a right to own a gun for MY protection. If you don;t that's too damn bad....

Oh no! Did I just open that door? :bang:

nikonhswebmaster

04-07-2008, 16:50

Oh no! Did I just open that door? :bang:

Yep -- now we have Russians, G_d, guns, all we need is some politics.

Socke

04-07-2008, 16:56

Yep -- now we have Russians, G_d, guns, all we need is some politics.

Hm, how's about some cuban costal defence system?

A cannon shot with a Canon :) http://beaumont.hett.org/files/0001/CRW_61120600.jpg

Creagerj

04-07-2008, 17:24

Ya lets drop the gun thing. Its a whole other can of worms, plus it is unrelated.

nikonhswebmaster

04-07-2008, 19:11

It would appear that perhaps the lawyer is putting a rosy spin on the events...

"Monday, March 31, 2008

ROCKAWAY TWP. -- Two people have been detained near Picatinny Arsenal and authorities are investigating photos taken around the area of the base late Sunday afternoon, a spokesperson from the Morris County Prosecutor's Office said.

Authorities closed a span of Route 15 South near the Rockaway Township-Wharton border around 4:30 p.m., where FBI agents, state, county and local police gathered around a tan Nissan Pathfinder with New Jersey license plates.

The suspect vehicle may have been used by two individuals who fled after being spotted taking photos that piqued the interest of the Department of Defense, said Robyn D'Onofrio, a spokeswoman for the Morris County Prosecutor's Office. The section of the shoulder where the SUV apparently stopped runs alongside a grassy divide that separates southbound Route 15 from a small side street, West Union Turnpike.

The SUV, which had a small, white, bumper sticker that read "I Love Israel" on the rear bumper, was towed away around 7:45 p.m. A container for diapers was visible in the trunk near a pair of flip-flops and other items, and a box of baby wipes apparently had been placed on the street with other items from the vehicle.

The investigation into the content of the photos is ongoing and is being led by the Department of Defense, according to the Morris County Prosecutor's Office."

Joe

04-07-2008, 19:38

"Dogs bark at strangers"--Herakleitos

bmattock

04-07-2008, 19:45

The suspect vehicle may have been used by two individuals who fled after being spotted taking photos that piqued the interest of the Department of Defense, said Robyn D'Onofrio, a spokeswoman for the Morris County Prosecutor's Office.

Fled? Interesting. Makes me wonder why the first report said nothing of it. I'd like to know more about this 'fled'. It would indeed change the tenor of the story significantly.

The investigation into the content of the photos is ongoing and is being led by the Department of Defense, according to the Morris County Prosecutor's Office."

I find this interesting. DoD has no jurisdiction on civilians. Even if caught on base, we always had to turn civilians over to the FBI immediately. Off base, we had zero jurisdiction.

Makes me want to know more. Thanks for posting this.

xayraa33

04-07-2008, 20:27

hmmm... this guy is looking more suspicious.

bmattock

04-07-2008, 21:23

hmmm... this guy is looking more suspicious.

Agreed, but I'd like to know more about what they mean by 'fled'. Usually when that happens, the car gets towed, the arrest is a 'felony stop' meaning everybody out and down on the ground face down, lights and sirens, etc. Usually makes bigger news than this. I'm not saying it did not happen, but I do want to know more. If the guy did 'flee' then yes, that's something entirely different and a very good reason to arrest him - it is illegal to run from the police! But I also note he does not seem to have been charged with eluding...

jan normandale

04-07-2008, 21:45

FWIW if you care

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/03/31/2-detained-near-picatinny-weapons-arsenal-department-of-defense-analyzing-photos/

cosmonot

04-07-2008, 21:55

Ya lets drop the gun thing. Its a whole other can of worms, plus it is unrelated.

Wasn't trying to bring it up. More like pointing out that after the whole Ft. Dix thing happened sheeple down here in the south of the state were pretty freaked. This was mostly thanks to the Philly media though.

Pitxu

04-07-2008, 23:03

"Townsell said the men never entered the base and were first spotted in the area around the visitor’s center, which is closed on weekends." (http://www.nationalterroralert.com/u...lyzing-photos/)

Could be a load of fuss for nothing. The guys first went to the "visitor's center", they "never entered the base."

shimo-kitasnap

04-07-2008, 23:42

oh ok, so he was asked to stop, photographing. now that's different. I'm beginning to see the light......

JRobbins

04-08-2008, 08:19

Ok, in case you haven't realised by now, this is a photography related forum.

Thank you, yes I've realized that.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. President Thomas Jefferson 1743—1826 ...

I agree wholeheartedly, I just don't think that's what happened in this case.

I can't see why you would feel so strongly about this "affair" that you have to keep repeating yourself.
Your friend told you yesterday, you read about it on the web, then you felt you had to come here and tell us your opinion.
What are you trying to achieve?

I live near Picatinny and I've interacted with the guards and police on many occasions. The guards especially are very professional and I didn't think it was fair that they were being accused (on this thread) of being heavyhanded or racist in this case, when what they did seemed very reasonable to me after the articles I read. There are problems with New Jersey police for sure but the implication that they are somehow tied to this overarcing "fear of terrorism" thing or that people around here have some sort of excessive paranoia are just silly, and I don't think it's appropriate for people who don't live around here to make accusations like that. This area of New Jersey (I can't speak for others) is generally very racially tolerant, and fairly reasonable when it comes to personal freedoms (except in traffic cases, but that is only my opinion, and I'm sure there's at least precedent for it in terms of traffic-related incident statistics) in comparison to many places I've been. I felt I needed to defend against this idea that the police, and especially the Picatinny guards, were being heavyhanded and unreasonable; this is doing an injustice to a set of excellent, professional people who I feel took appropriate action given the information we have available.