DC & Northern VA - police state?

LEO 229 · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

vrwmiller wrote:

These additional security measures fall into two different categroies....those that mitigate the anxiety of the public (and even public servants) and then those that mitigate the actual risk. All of these security measures fall into one of those two. Those that fall into the "mitigating anxiety" category need to be removed and more money/energy focused into mitigating the actual risks.

These additional security measures may not necessarily violate the rights of the American people, but they are certainly pre-incident indicators for the actual event when our rights will be removed, if the American people don't remain cognizant of this fact and act to stave off such violations of the constitution.

Personally, I avoid DC as much as possible. I cannot fathom going to a place such a high crime rate and not being permitted to carry my firearm for self-defense.

I would submit that having the go through the screening process at the airport is the same way.

It is to such an extreme that it seems ridiculous to the common man. Being denied the smallest of items that are harmless to me is absurd. Being allowed to have only a small amount of liquids and gels in your carry on bags is a bit much too and truly pointless. If you could have carried on a deadly item... it can also be in your stored luggage with a timer or remote.

I see a severe over-reaction to protect the public. My wife and her mother were yanked out of the line at every stop on the way to Florida and questioned. They are Americans but treated like a terrorist.

But to make the people happy and feel safe.. they take it too far. The other side of the coin... you do not like it... do not fly!! You can always drive to your destination.

rebfan · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

What is the alternative? Not have any security, and when we have a number of terrorist attacks what will the cry be at that point?

Do you have rules for your own homes? Do you expect people to follow them when they are your guests? Do you expect to be able to go freely into a facility that houses and or works onNational security issues? Do you think the Government has the responsibility to safe guard those issues andat the same time safe guard the employees and visitors tothose buildings?I think the Government would be doing all of us a larger disservice by not having added security.

Again this has nothing to do with rights, just common sense that in the face of a motivated enemy, we need to take security pretty dam seriously.

I met with a lot of Government and private sector employees who do business with the Government, and not once have I been told by anyone they are concerned with the level of security of their building, or it has caused them any level of discomfort. In fact just the opposite. They realize that security is needed because of where they work and what that particular agency means to the overall security of the Nation.

Is our Federal Government always honest, hell no. However, I do not see this added security as the start of a path where our rights are taken away.

Just think about it, before the terrorist attacks, many of these buildings did not have the level of security they do know. And I can almost guarantee the level of security would not be at its present state if not for the attacks.

Granted since I do have a job that involves National Security, I may be looking at it more from that stand point, but even so, as a Citizen I can appreciate the level of security.

vrwmiller · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

I am not saying that additional security is unnecessary and that government buildings or state secrets are exempt from being secure. The White House, Capitol Building, CIA building, and all other government buildings/agencies which handle state secrets and are charged with protecting the American people from attack and/or invasion certainly do need security.

What I am saying is that all security measures that have been put in place need to be thoroughly evaluated to assess the purpose and goal. If the purpose and/or goal of a particular security measure is to ease public anxiety, but does little to actually mitigate the risk, then it's a useless security measure.

The following statement certainly shows that such measures mitigate public anxiety, but do they mitigate the actual risk?

I met with a lot of Government and private sector employees who do business with the Government, and not once have I been told by anyone they are concerned with the level of security of their building, or it has caused them any level of discomfort. In fact just the opposite. They realize that security is needed because of where they work and what that particular agency means to the overall security of the Nation

jbobmurph · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

Just one comment on Arlington Cemetery - I'm a frequent visitor (I enjoy the solitude in some of the "off-the-beaten-path" corners of the cemetery, plus I have some friends of friends and distant family buried there, and since I live less than 1 mile away, and they live considerably further, I try to drop by now and then).

And really, the only time I've seen any kind of elevated presence (even when there've been quasi-military police out in force for events such as the inaugural) aside from speeches by the President or Vice President for Veterans' Day has been for something quite reasonable - a funeral.

Arlington is a functioning cemetery, and most of the funeral processions will be headed by police just like most any funeral procession is nowadays, and a fair number of them will have police in uniform/squad care as members of the procession, there to pay their respects. The two funerals I've actually attended both had uniformed policemen from out of town in their processions.

Generally, security is actually fairly light by DC standards - a couple hired private security guards (ie not police - unarmed security guards) checking passes before you drive into the cemetery itself, or directing you to the parking deck if you don't havea pass.

The only armed presence at the cemetary on a random Tuesday are the 3rd US Infantry (ie the "Old Guard", standing guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

rebfan · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

I understand and agree assessments need to be made and done on a regular basis. I also know that happens. If you had to go on any military base on September 12, 2001(at least in this area) and do so now, there is no question those assessments happen. The Government is always adjusting and reacting to specific threats and or actual events that happen around the World(like the most recent attacks in England).Of course those changes may not always happen as fast as we would like them to, but they do happen.

The out of town visitor just is not used to seeing such security measures, like you, me and others are. It is like the traffic in this area, we know it sucks, but we also handle it and put up with it, unlike someone who lives in an area that does not have a large volume of traffic.

Unfortunately, the security is here to stay.

LEO 229 · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

rebfan wrote:

What is the alternative? Not have any security, and when we have a number of terrorist attacks what will the cry be at that point?

Do you have rules for your own homes? Do you expect people to follow them when they are your guests? Do you expect to be able to go freely into a facility that houses and or works onNational security issues? Do you think the Government has the responsibility to safe guard those issues andat the same time safe guard the employees and visitors tothose buildings?I think the Government would be doing all of us a larger disservice by not having added security.

Again this has nothing to do with rights, just common sense that in the face of a motivated enemy, we need to take security pretty dam seriously.

I met with a lot of Government and private sector employees who do business with the Government, and not once have I been told by anyone they are concerned with the level of security of their building, or it has caused them any level of discomfort. In fact just the opposite. They realize that security is needed because of where they work and what that particular agency means to the overall security of the Nation.

Is our Federal Government always honest, hell no. However, I do not see this added security as the start of a path where our rights are taken away.

Just think about it, before the terrorist attacks, many of these buildings did not have the level of security they do know. And I can almost guarantee the level of security would not be at its present state if not for the attacks.

Granted since I do have a job that involves National Security, I may be looking at it more from that stand point, but even so, as a Citizen I can appreciate the level of security.

I think we all understand that some security is needed. But many may feel the security is an over-reaction and well beyond what can really be justified.

We will leave the borders wide open but you cannot take a pair of nail clippers on the plane.

When my wife and mother-in-law gets yanked out of the line to board a plane on every stop... come on!! What profile did they fit while they were on their way to a vacation? I think we all know who is more likely to be a terrorist.. and my wife sure did not fit the bill.

She may be a terror at home with me but that is all.

OC-Glock19 · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I think we all know who is more likely to be a terrorist.. and my wife sure did not fit the bill. She may be a terror at home with me but that is all.

Oooo...You'd better hope that your wife doesn't read this forum.

LEO 229 · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

OC-Glock19 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I think we all know who is more likely to be a terrorist.. and my wife sure did not fit the bill. She may be a terror at home with me but that is all.

Click to expand...

Oooo...You'd better hope that your wife doesn't read this forum.

Ya.... is it too late to edit my last post???? Wait... she thinks your all nuts and will never visit.

rebfan · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

I agree some of the airport stuff can be a puzzling. That of course is because the Feds cannot racial profile. That is one reason I do not like flying much anymore. My wife just was pulled out of line two weeks ago as well.

As for the other security measures at buildings, just like us that open carry, people may not fully understand it and might even be uncomfortable because of it, but that is for them to work out not us. People just have to realize what and who we are dealing with, and understand the security is not in place to cause fear.

Heck I don't understand many operations the local police department has in place, but what I am question may just be a vital part of them.

Terrorists hit easy targets, that is why there are many more terrorist attacks in Countries where the security is not up to par.

It is a double edged sword since if we are attacked you know there will be lots of people asking how and why it could happen.

I also agree we need to do a better job on the border, and completely agree it does not make sense to have an open border but make it impossible to take a bottle of water on a plane.

vrwmiller · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

rebfan wrote:

I agree some of the airport stuff can be a puzzling. That of course is because the Feds cannot racial profile. That is one reason I do not like flying much anymore. My wife just was pulled out of line two weeks ago as well.

It would be far better for airlines to reinforce cockpit doors and require that they be locked and unopened at all while passengers are on the plane. This, in conjunction with metal detectors and bomb sniffing technology at the gates, will likely prevent most passenger terrorist attacks on an airplane.

Of course, there are always logistics to work through when implementing security measures. This is no different when implementing policies and measures with regards to securing the cockpit. Most, if not all of these issues can be resolved.

The most important security measure on an airplane are the passengers. After 9/11 no passenger is going to passively sit around while a terrorist(s) have free reign of an airplane.

There's a few other points we could cover here, but it's not within the scope of the thread, I think. So...

Wooley · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

From what I understand many of the drift fences are to keep people from trampling the grass into a muddy/dusty hole. And yes, many were up for the 4th of July.

Parked police cars with the hoods up? LEO, back me up here....Bored LEOs chatting it up and opening the hoods to keep a car from overheating on a hot day.

Who was talking about "off the beaten path"? That is the truth there. Some of the best places in DC are things a tourist will never find on their own.

DC is a funny fish, and part of the fun is the security you'll find like no where else. That said, I regularly visit a pizza joint in Georgetown and take the pie down to the Mall to eat it outdoors. This is usually after midnight, and I've never had a problem with LE.

I slept on the lawn once near the Washington Monument. It was accidental, I had just layed down to watch the night skyfrom the slight incline there and fell asleep. Park Police woke me up and laughed because I was snoring too loud and joked that he'd write me a ticket for noise pollution!

rebfan · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

vrwmiller wrote:

rebfan wrote:

I agree some of the airport stuff can be a puzzling. That of course is because the Feds cannot racial profile. That is one reason I do not like flying much anymore. My wife just was pulled out of line two weeks ago as well.

Click to expand...

It would be far better for airlines to reinforce cockpit doors and require that they be locked and unopened at all while passengers are on the plane. This, in conjunction with metal detectors and bomb sniffing technology at the gates, will likely prevent most passenger terrorist attacks on an airplane.

Of course, there are always logistics to work through when implementing security measures. This is no different when implementing policies and measures with regards to securing the cockpit. Most, if not all of these issues can be resolved.

The most important security measure on an airplane are the passengers. After 9/11 no passenger is going to passively sit around while a terrorist(s) have free reign of an airplane.

There's a few other points we could cover here, but it's not within the scope of the thread, I think. So...

I agree and I believe that was one of the security measures put into place. I do not know if every plane flying today has been retro-fitted yet or not.

I think if there was anything that came close to a hi-jacking today there would be plenty of people ready to react

Sounds like we need to have another PW/Manassas gathering to discuss this issue and others.....

possumboy · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

rebfan wrote:

When someone chooses to go to the Pentagon, or the WH, or any other Federal building, they are subjected to rules. If you do not agree with those rules, simply avoid going to those buildings. But, the way you put it, "public" buildings make it seem like every building you enter has security in place and that simply is not the case.

Many of these Federal buildings had security before September 11 but added more in response to the terrorist attacks. Some of the Federal buildings did not have any security before, and added it after. But, I don't see where any of our rights are being violated due to an increase in security at these Federal buildings, or buildings that house Federal agencies.

Most commercial office buildings do not have any security whatsoever. Sure some might have a front desk person who will ask whom you are visiting in the building, but that is about it. These front desk folks will not search you or demand you hand over items.

I'm talking about getting questioned and forcible searches of bags if you sit on benches to long on the street in front of the White House. Being denied access to the Mall because you have a pocket knife or leatherman type tool. The searching of all bags entering the Smithsonian (which I do not go into anymore because of it). Questions about if you have a gun because you are wearing a NRA hat, detention until you prove you are not carrying just because you are wearing a NRA hat.

It could because of the the shirts I wear that say: Disarmed and unprotected. DC, criminal safety zone.

OH, and my favorite: "You made eye contact with me, is that a challenge? You have any weapons on you? Let me see some ID." And then refusing to let you just leave.

So it has little to do with Federal Agency Buildings. I know the difference between open buildings and secure access buildings. The problems I see have nothing to do with access to DoT, DoJ agencies, ICE, or any other type of federal agencies - which are not considered public access buildings. It is being questioned in public parks, national parks, or the sidewalks. And refusal to answer questions being consider probable cause to detain.

And, not matter what you think you know, IA for the Capitol Police confirmed one report has a civil rights violations with the search and seizure of property.

All of this was done because "the world has changed since 9/11"

vrwmiller · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

rebfan wrote:

I agree and I believe that was one of the security measures put into place. I do not know if every plane flying today has been retro-fitted yet or not.

I think if there was anything that came close to a hi-jacking today there would be plenty of people ready to react

Sounds like we need to have another PW/Manassas gathering to discuss this issue and others.....

These types of things have discussed on and off for the last 30 or so years. I can't say for sure, as it has been a few years since I last flew, but I have read books and articles indicating that this has not been implemented, though some airlines are voluntarily doing this already.

boomcat · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

Shovelhead wrote:

The snow fences were put up around the mall area before the Fouth of July celebration to designate security areas that were accessed by going though check-points.

In some areas. they also keep pedestrians from crossing the busy streets anywhere they choose, tying up traffic in the process. (This used to be a HUGE problem in that area)

The "Jersey Walls" on 17th street are there to keep traffic out of the construction zone where they're replacing the sidewalk and installing bollards to keep someone from driving a vehicle onto the White House grounds.

As for the increased police presence, I'll wager WashingtonDC Metro area is probably a little higher on the terrorist's hit list than your hometown.

At least Virginia is a "Gold State" when it comes to recognizing its citizens right to self protection.

+1
The Federal Campus looks very shabby for two weeks after Independence Day. It gets high foot traffic.

I used to bicycle home from the night shift, starting in Glover Park - the area of the big Russian embassy on the hill - down through Georgetown, across the Key bridge and along the GW Parkway to National Airport and then on suburban streets for a couple of miles to my house. This was 2-3 AM and I never had a problem. I did this literally hundreds of times. There are many areas of DC that are patrolled by overlapping jurisidictions of police: metro PD, Secret Service uniformed (they guard embassies), U.S. Park Police (the Mall and even Dupont Circle are covered), Metro Transit police, Capitol Hill Police, and the Federal Protective Service (office buildings). Central DC's streets are surprisingly safe, although the occaisional atrocity does still occur.

rebfan · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

possumboy wrote:

rebfan wrote:

When someone chooses to go to the Pentagon, or the WH, or any other Federal building, they are subjected to rules. If you do not agree with those rules, simply avoid going to those buildings. But, the way you put it, "public" buildings make it seem like every building you enter has security in place and that simply is not the case.

Many of these Federal buildings had security before September 11 but added more in response to the terrorist attacks. Some of the Federal buildings did not have any security before, and added it after. But, I don't see where any of our rights are being violated due to an increase in security at these Federal buildings, or buildings that house Federal agencies.

Most commercial office buildings do not have any security whatsoever. Sure some might have a front desk person who will ask whom you are visiting in the building, but that is about it. These front desk folks will not search you or demand you hand over items.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about getting questioned and forcible searches of bags if you sit on benches to long on the street in front of the White House. Being denied access to the Mall because you have a pocket knife or leatherman type tool. The searching of all bags entering the Smithsonian (which I do not go into anymore because of it). Questions about if you have a gun because you are wearing a NRA hat, detention until you prove you are not carrying just because you are wearing a NRA hat.

It could because of the the shirts I wear that say: Disarmed and unprotected. DC, criminal safety zone.

OH, and my favorite: "You made eye contact with me, is that a challenge? You have any weapons on you? Let me see some ID." And then refusing to let you just leave.

So it has little to do with Federal Agency Buildings. I know the difference between open buildings and secure access buildings. The problems I see have nothing to do with access to DoT, DoJ agencies, ICE, or any other type of federal agencies - which are not considered public access buildings. It is being questioned in public parks, national parks, or the sidewalks. And refusal to answer questions being consider probable cause to detain.

And, not matter what you think you know, IA for the Capitol Police confirmed one report has a civil rights violations with the search and seizure of property.

All of this was done because "the world has changed since 9/11"

I agree you should not be stopped for wearing a NRA shirt or hat and then asked if you have a gun. That is way over the line. BTW, funny shirt. Looking people in the eye, I don't understand, I do that all the time when I encounter security at the Fed buildings and have never had a problem.

However, I will have to disagree with othern theissues. Alcohol is banned from the Mall, and many other items, it is still Federal land and therefore subjected to their rules. Same goes for the Musuems, they need to be watched just as much as the other Federal buildings. As for sitting too long on a bench by the WH, again given the location, I think a person would attract attention due to the many cases where terrorist have staked out and did recon on different locations.

I don't doubt there could be a case with the Capitol Hill police. That does not mean their policies are out of the norm. Lets see how the case plays out.

cREbralFIX · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

Airport "security" is a dog and pony show for the cattle that pass through.

Given that my wife was a superviser for a major airline, I have an interesting perspective on "security". Did you know that around 50% of the employees working baggage, the counter, and the gate are Muslim? Wages are low and they stick together. Most were difficult to manage by non-muslims (at least on this account).

My wife said it wouldn't take much to violate the "security" at Dulles. They would be able to track the badge after an event (and see the video), but stopping it?

Believe me, I don't like getting on an airplane anymore. I get on them now, but it's a nerve-wracking trip.

LEO 229 · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

Wooley wrote:

From what I understand many of the drift fences are to keep people from trampling the grass into a muddy/dusty hole. And yes, many were up for the 4th of July.

Parked police cars with the hoods up? LEO, back me up here....Bored LEOs chatting it up and opening the hoods to keep a car from overheating on a hot day.

Who was talking about "off the beaten path"? That is the truth there. Some of the best places in DC are things a tourist will never find on their own.

DC is a funny fish, and part of the fun is the security you'll find like no where else. That said, I regularly visit a pizza joint in Georgetown and take the pie down to the Mall to eat it outdoors. This is usually after midnight, and I've never had a problem with LE.

I slept on the lawn once near the Washington Monument. It was accidental, I had just layed down to watch the night skyfrom the slight incline there and fell asleep. Park Police woke me up and laughed because I was snoring too loud and joked that he'd write me a ticket for noise pollution!

If your planning on sitting still for a while.. a LEO can pop the hood open to help keep the engine a little cooler. I do not normally worry about this. K9 LEOs will often do this to help the AC stay cool.

LEO 229 · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

possumboy wrote:

I'm talking about getting questioned and forcible searches of bags if you sit on benches to long on the street in front of the White House. Being denied access to the Mall because you have a pocket knife or leatherman type tool. The searching of all bags entering the Smithsonian (which I do not go into anymore because of it). Questions about if you have a gun because you are wearing a NRA hat, detention until you prove you are not carrying just because you are wearing a NRA hat.

It could because of the the shirts I wear that say: Disarmed and unprotected. DC, criminal safety zone.

OH, and my favorite: "You made eye contact with me, is that a challenge? You have any weapons on you? Let me see some ID." And then refusing to let you just leave.

So it has little to do with Federal Agency Buildings. I know the difference between open buildings and secure access buildings. The problems I see have nothing to do with access to DoT, DoJ agencies, ICE, or any other type of federal agencies - which are not considered public access buildings. It is being questioned in public parks, national parks, or the sidewalks. And refusal to answer questions being consider probable cause to detain.

And, not matter what you think you know, IA for the Capitol Police confirmed one report has a civil rights violations with the search and seizure of property.

All of this was done because "the world has changed since 9/11"

Sounds like a violation of your rights....

Still cannot search you or your bags and demand your ID without cause. But hey... your in DC where they think taking away your gun keeps you safer cause your more likely to end upshooting yourself.

Maybe they are getting lined up to solve some murders saying the citizens shot themselves and the gun disappeared.

openryan · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

BB62 wrote:

I was in Washington DC with my son's Boy Scout group last Friday.

We parked in the parking garage at Arlington, walked around the cemetary a bit, then crossed the bridge into DC. We only got from the bridge to the Washington Monument, to the White House, and points in between.

I was struck by somethings - the number of police/security around in DC AND the cemetary,the numberof "temporary" sloppy looking fences around the reflecting pool, Vietnam Memorial, etc. etc., the fence and the ratty-looking concrete barriers around the circle behind the White House,and the unwelcoming nature of the White House -in general how poorly-tended things looked in the portion of DC we got to.

At the White House, our group had no more than just arrived (the boys were peering through the fence, monkeying around and taking pictures), when a uniformed Secret Service guy asked us all to move on. The narrow sidewalk there and the unwelcome treatment just sealed my impression.

We walked back into VA and on the road to Arlington were five (YES 5!) police cruisers sitting there, 4 officerswere out of their car jawing, one of whom had a thigh holster and tactical uniform. I guess they were there to keep the ghosts in line. It took us a while to get back to our cars in the garage, and when we came out, two of the police cars had their hoods up.

We then went to the Iwo Jima memorial, which appeared to be a bit better maintained.

In total, I was not at all impressed, but rather was disgusted at the sorry state of things (atmosphere and appearance) where we visited. It just reinforced my impression that the political class is far removed from the rest of the citizenry.

I just wished I could have open carried there!!

Comments?

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/districts/matrix10_hearing_022304.pdf

It is a .pdf file, you are right -- there is a very large police presence

DC & Northern VA - police state?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher