Police to Check Bags on NYC Subways ... 4th amendment anyone?

Illegal Search as a Counter Terrorism Measure?

Guy, let's quit kidding ourselves here. NYC Subways move about 4.5 million passengers every rush hour, or around 12 million in a 12 hour day. Random searches would not find ANYTHING or be able to even begin to screen a statistically significant percentage of possible threats.
Add to the inconvenient math the fact that it has to be done all touchy feely RANDOMLY, so you have to check as many 5 year olds and Grannies in wheelchairs as you do young Islamic guys carrying big suitcases and having wires trailing from their coats.
This never worked with the airports, and it will never work with the subways. The real hazard is that while this goes on, upper management will be pressing for results, the searchers will be trying to make an impression on their bosses, and we will wind up having this infection spread and build until we'll hope somebody does blow up a train to get all the inspectors off our asses. Worst of all, when it fails, rather than stand down, all those inspectors are going to lie about it to keep their civil service jobs, and we'll wind up being RANDOMLY checked every time we leave our own front doors.
Anybody out there ever see ANY government program finally come to an end? We've got toll roads in Maryland that were supposed to become toll-free once the construction expense was paid back, and 30 years later the tolls are still going UP each year, but now they spend the money on PATROL expenses. Get the picture?
 
Personally, I think it's an invitation to disaster. Think about 3 terrorists, each carrying one bomb to the same platform a few minutes apart. Better than a 50% chance that none will ask to be searched.

Try it day one:
All three don't make it to the platform. Nothing happens and they hook back up later.

Try it day two:
Same result.

Try it day 3:
All 3 gain access unchallenged. They board different trains. At a predetermined time "Boom, Boom, Boom".

That night, we get treated to Islamic fundamentalist video propaganda about how the New York police are powerless to foil the plans of Allah. It'd be almost too tempting a mark to pass up.

This is simply bad strategy.
Rich
 
OK, enough pissing and moaning.

Let's actually something CONSTRUCTIVE.

What would you do, if put into a position of supreme authority, to:

1. Violate absolutely no one's Constitutional rights (not even a whiff of violation).

while

2. Assuring that there will be absolutely no terrorist attacks on American soil at any time in the future.

Remember, you have to provide the citizens of the United States, all what, 260 million at this point, with absolute security with absolutely no hint of a violation of civil liberties.
 
sadly we are going to have it happen again on American soil. whos to say it will be NYC? i would be much more worried about getting mugged on the subway than i would getting bombed.

people have to fend for themselves. if i were about to board the subway and saw a middle eastern type getting on who was carrying a bag or whos clothing looked funny, i would not get on that train with him. he likely would be harmless, but i wouldnt take the chance.

its sad that it has to be that way, but thats the sign of the times.
 
Hi Trapp,

Great idea about armed citizens. The only bug in this is look at where the major trans centers are. N.Y., Chicago, L.A., San Francisco. ALL are big no gun areas. Sure as hell glad I don't live there.

Kevin
 
OK, enough pissing and moaning.

Let's actually something CONSTRUCTIVE.

What would you do, if put into a position of supreme authority, to:

1. Violate absolutely no one's Constitutional rights (not even a whiff of violation).

while

2. Assuring that there will be absolutely no terrorist attacks on American soil at any time in the future.

Remember, you have to provide the citizens of the United States, all what, 260 million at this point, with absolute security with absolutely no hint of a violation of civil liberties.
Click to expand...

I would man-up and ADMIT that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY ON EARTH to ever "assure that there will be absolutely no terrorist attacks on American soil at any time in the future."

The problem here is that we keep countenancing this LIE that we can somehow make it to safety, and then live there happily.

We can NEVER assure safety. Individual choice, which can occur at any moment in time, guarantees that there will never be total safety. At any moment, a person standing next to a stranger can stick a finger in his eye, or a knife in his gut, or bring a pipe to his head. What can prevent this? Absolutely nothing.

So every time our leaders start to move forward in a discussion about what to do, it is presupposed from the outset that SOME action or plan will actually result in prevention of any and all terrorist attacks, and we just have to figure out what that plan could be. Since that's a fallacy, any result of such brainstorming will also necessarily be fatally flawed.

You sound like you're issuing this challenge to us, Mike, as though you're pointing out how tough a job the authorities have. I think I am probably similar to many people here who are not holding the authorities to task for completely eliminating any possible chance for terrorists to strike. That's like telling your gardener that you won't pay him if you find one weed in a 4-acre garden. It's being unfairly unrealistic and demanding.

So it's not a valid challenge to tell us, "Well, if the public was demanding that YOU stop all terrorist plots, what would YOU do?" Because it is an unfair and unrealistic demand to be making in the first place.


-blackmind
 
"You sound like you're issuing this challenge to us, Mike, as though you're pointing out how tough a job the authorities have."

No, I'm issing a challenge to the individuals on this board to strike (possibly) a positive blow for both safety AND Constitutional rights.

Pissing, moaning, and handwringing are wonderful.

So is using one's mind to come up with creative solutions.

Thus, the questions I posed remain.


"I would man-up and ADMIT that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY ON EARTH to ever "assure that there will be absolutely no terrorist attacks on American soil at any time in the future.""

I don't believe that any politician, politician, or public safety official has ever claimed that is possible.

That's MY question, based on many of the messages I've read on this and other boards over the past several years, ranging from 'shut the borders' to 'kill all the rag heads where ever they are'. Given the tone of some of those messages, it's apparent that many people do believe that absolute safety is possible.

Thus, the questions I posed remain.


"So it's not a valid challenge to tell us, "Well, if the public was demanding that YOU stop all terrorist plots, what would YOU do?" Because it is an unfair and unrealistic demand to be making in the first place."

I told you no such thing. You're wasting valuable effort on reading into my questions what YOU want them to say. That's not using your mind, or your time, constructively.

The questions I posed remain.
 
The searches are fine. I'd rather have cops in those subways, on the look out and checking randomly than no one there at all. Chances are, they are going to be eyeing the people who give an appearance of suspicion or obviously some Middle Eastern person with a hefty back pack. Call it what ever the hell you want. If certain "demographics" continue to consist mainly of a certain ethnicity and/or religious persuasion, then it's the RESPONCIBILITY of the peaceful citizens of those such cultures to get off their collective ass's and do something about the bad seeds among them. That would help control the problem and restore confidence to there cultures and religions. Think about it, if Japanese Shinto’s became fanatical fundamentalists, and carried out similar acts of indiscriminate violence, we'd be searching every Asian looking person with a camera bag. Wouldn't we.
 
J West, what you just described is profiling, and even though it makes perfect sense to make sure that you're targeting your searches to where they make the most effective sense, there are people around who demand that we don't do that kind of thing.

And if you are talking about selecting people because they seem suspicious, well, that's more like "probable cause." At this point, the very randomness of the searches does a complete end-run around the employment of probable cause.

If the cops did as you are saying and "eyed" suspicious-looking ethnic people and that suspiciousness was what qualified as "probable cause," I would have less of a problem with it.

But just as they are doing with airline passengers, they will be searching random people even if the person that the computer selects is one of the unlikeliest of profile types to be a terrorist.

-blackmind
 
It's true. But it really makes me wonder...

How the hell did we ever end up in a situation where the majority of the population either is not smart enough to understand that we are being led blindly by people who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag, or are so unconcerned that they don't really care?
Click to expand...
Public education. Which includes standardized BS like SATs, contractual though they may be, which cause even private schools to "teach to the test" rather than teaching something useful.
 
Mike-
I'm glad you clarified, as now I know how to respond.
What would you do, if put into a position of supreme authority, to:
1. Violate absolutely no one's Constitutional rights (not even a whiff of violation).
while
2. Assuring that there will be absolutely no terrorist attacks on American soil at any time in the future.
Click to expand...
I'd start from MY side, with something called the Constitution and look at what I might do within its limits, such as properly policing the borders; making Americans aware that they now have another threat, at least as dangerous as shark attacks and lightening..I'd call that threat "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists". Americans would STAND UP as they ALWAYS HAVE. I'd do stuff like that.

I now pose the question back, as is only fair.
If you had "supreme authority", what would you do to make us even a little more safe without making us a significantly less free? Stop every 10th citizen getting on ONE form of public transport in ONE city, to ask if they will submit to a VOLUNTARY search?

Loss of Declared Freedoms is not the worst thing in the world, I agree. But loosing them to gain Window Dressing is truly a travesty.
Rich
 
The most effective method of keeping terroist bombs out of the subway would be to search every individual. But, given the number of individuals that flat won't work.

The next most effective methof is to search every other individual - still too many still wont work.

So pragmatically speaking you have to get the number of searches down to a number that will maintain the subway operational (otherwise the terrorists win), and that means that you will have huge gaping holes in your security screening.

Q: Is it better to have some screening than no screening? Yes, some screening will have some small impact and any impact is better than no impact.


Q: Is the random searches really just a publicity relations move? Probably mostly, but hey it might turn up a dumb terrorist and that would be good.

Q: Are there other ways to defend the subways that make sense? You bet - screen every one who fits the terrorist profile. When enough bombs have gone off in the subway I bet the PC resistance to profiling goes away.

If I had to ride the subway I would, but I would look at the immediate people around me and make a judgement on whether to get on or wait based on my own profiling.
 
Is it better to have some screening than no screening? Yes, some screening will have some small impact and any impact is better than no impact.
Click to expand...
Wait. I think I've seen this reasoning before. [Furiously flips pages of his history book.] That's right.....it happened in the McCarthy era....and again with the Brady Law; and again and again....oh, THERE it is: "If we can just save ONE life". :rolleyes:


Is the random searches really just a publicity relations move? Probably mostly, but hey it might turn up a dumb terrorist and that would be good.
Click to expand...
Damned YES. It's all them DUMB terrorists causing the problems. What would we ever do if they had brains? [Double:rolleyes:]
Rich
 
How easy will it be to for the ascendant American Taliban to impose Sharia law when we've already done 95% of it ourselves in our futile, flailing efforts to protect the country?
 
Q: Is it better to have some screening than no screening? Yes, some screening will have some small impact and any impact is better than no impact.
Click to expand...

This is not accurate. Not while anyone who might possibly be caught in a screening can opt to turn away rather than be screened. That person, with his bomb, will just keep trying until he manages to get through in a location where he is not stopped to be searched.

And it seems ludicrous to me to say that "some is better than none," when the total amount of people screened is going to be FAR LOWER THAN 1% OF RIDERS. That essentially accomplishes NOTHING, and does not even scare away any attempters. They can laugh off odds like that.


Q: Is the random searches really just a publicity relations move? Probably mostly, but hey it might turn up a dumb terrorist and that would be good. [/quote]

Not only is it just a "public relations move," it is a bad one. Any "leader" supporting this move is sure to suffer a backlash from people who go, "What the HELL?!" and see the unconstitutionality of requiring searches for people to go about public travel.


Q: Are there other ways to defend the subways that make sense? You bet - screen every one who fits the terrorist profile. When enough bombs have gone off in the subway I bet the PC resistance to profiling goes away.
Click to expand...

Let's hope so. Fighting this with one hand tied behind our back for what -- because leftists feel it's offensive to the very people we are sure are doing the bombings?! Capitulating to a loud and stupid minority just makes asses out of us.

-blackmind
 
Let's hope so. Fighting this with one hand tied behind our back for what -- because leftists feel it's offensive to the very people we are sure are doing the bombings?! Capitulating to a loud and stupid minority just makes asses out of us.
Click to expand...

Watch that next step, its s long slippery slope down.

While in practice profiling might solve a lot of problems, keep in mind where the legal prohibitions against profiling originate. If we don't like it when the government violates our 4th Amendment rights, why should we like it any more when the government violates BOTH the 4th Amendment AND the Equal Protection Clause?

Perhaps because its someone else's rights are getting trampled? IOW, is it ok for the government to trample the Constitution as long as we're not personally targeted?

So what? Whats the big deal if some Americans would be inconvenienced by profiling and a little search? We'd all be more safe, right? The problem is the rights lost as Americans belong to all of us. Its the same 4th Amendment thats getting trampled upon. Only in one case its coupled with a trampling of the Equal Protection clause. That shouldn't make it any more acceptable.
 
Profiling does not run afoul of equal protection, as I see it, in the classic sense.

The PEOPLE are being "equally protected" by the government's attempts to actively go after the most likely suspects in a particular kind of crime.

If a black man commits a crime and goes on the run, is it "profiling" -- and therefore a violation of blacks' equal protection -- when cops drive around town looking for a black man who matches the description of the likely suspect, or should they have to round up a random number of white men too, even though it is known that a white man is not suspected of the crime?

If it is well understood that MOST, if not all, of the islamic terrorists committing bombing atrocities around the world these days are going to fit the image of the arab male, why is it wrong to go looking for arab males specifically?

-blackmind
 
This thread has been amusing, to say the least.

Mike asked what would I do if...

Why, I'd pour some chlorine into that thar gene pool!

Yessiree!

Who ever it was, that convinced the American People that they can live a life of liberty without danger, has to be the absolute best salesman ever!

It is no ones responsibility to keep me safe but me. So if'n t'were up to me, I'd give ever one the opportunity to git armed and git trained. Those that won't, well then, it's' thar problem. Thar's that old saw about God helping those that help themselves... Well, ya don't hafta believe in a god to understand the logic behind the saying. And if'n ya don't understand??? The chlorine shower is right over yonder...

I'm all fer people waking up to the reality of life. It just ain't safe out thar, and no gubment policy or agent can really keep me safe. If'n it takes NYC blowin up to wake them folks up, I'm all fer it.

The problem with some of youse, is that yer jest too libral to make the hard choices. Ya worry too much about gettin re-elected or some such. Build some fences. Ya just might get some good neighbors.

blackmind, ya just keep on a'preachin boy. meybe ya might reach a few souls....
 
Okay, how about this instead...a compromise maybe...use police with sniffer dogs to patrol the subway. Search any bag which attracts the dog's attention, but only those bags. I dont know much about US law, but isnt that probable cause? Is that better?
 
So obvious is that this so-called "war" is a sham. With each new "event" the announcement of the next "measure" in response is announced as a tour bus guide indicates some new sight at which to gawk and marvel, and the tourists rush from one side of the bus to the other, one window to the other - rather than using their own eyes and intuition.

In addition to what several posters have mentioned in other regards, what is blatantly obvious is that any searches or formulas for how they are conducted for subway transport can easily be sidestepped by .. a switch to other targets.

So where does this end? That is the most important question. What is next? Searches at every single bus depot? Shopping malls? Hospitals? Supermarkets? Movie theatres?

If we are going to fight a real "war" - if that what it is - why not fight it and stop those getting in that threaten us, and get those out that are already here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top