Police to Check Bags on NYC Subways ... 4th amendment anyone?
- Thread starter BerettaCougar
- Start date
Butch50
Allow me to spell it out for you.
You apparently think the loss of our 4th amendment rights is just okie-dokey if its in furtherance of a common sense approach to keep bombs out of the subways. Sarah Brady thinks the loss of our 2nd amendment rights is just okie-dokey if its in furtherance of a common sense approach to prevent gun violence. Both of you want to restrict constitutional rights for whatever the hell can be defined as a "common sense approach" to accomplishing your goal.
Allow me to spell it out for you.
You apparently think the loss of our 4th amendment rights is just okie-dokey if its in furtherance of a common sense approach to keep bombs out of the subways. Sarah Brady thinks the loss of our 2nd amendment rights is just okie-dokey if its in furtherance of a common sense approach to prevent gun violence. Both of you want to restrict constitutional rights for whatever the hell can be defined as a "common sense approach" to accomplishing your goal.
Guess we better start searching vehicles going through tunnels, over bridges, and in parking garages (the first WTC bomb was in the garage). Since the car bombings in Iraq we better post cops at all the driveway entrances to all the shopping places in the country. Best we also suject anyone wanting to rent a moving truck to a background check. Oh and we are going to have to keep a limit on the deisel fuel, and furtilizer that the farmers can have access to.
Since almost everyone in the world goes to one of these places eventually then we can erradicate all of the illegal contraband sooner or later!
I know this is sarcasim, but it is also the logical conclusion to the perameters set forth in the subway searches, and that is not sarcasim. It is keeping with the random searches for safeties sake theme.
X=Y. Only now we have somehow magically made Y a variable where X is not.
I don't see any loss of Constitutional rights in having random searches for bombs at subway entrances. You can simply choose not to take the subway, just as you can choose not to take an airplane.
Searching cars going into tunnels is a distinct possibility in the future - imagine the damage to a tunnel that a car bomb could do. A tunnel has the ability to be checked - logistically speaking - two entrances where you can set up check points and they are probably inviting targets for terrorists. Some specific bridges may also come to that, big ones with high public profiles. But there are too many parking garages, shopping parking lots to make those feasible for searches. Doing background checks on people renting trucks would be too large a project with too minimal of a result to make it feasible as well.
Until our Govt, read George Bush here, gets serious about sealing off our borders we are wide open to the kind of attack that happened in London. Our borders are worse than sieves. Do you doubt that there are terrorist cells in the US right now? How hard will it be for a few of them, armed with backpacks to get into the NY subway system? Even having sealed our borders hermetically, we would still have the native born terrorists to contend with. Just as searches to get on airplanes are a now normal routine, searches to enter other areas will also become routine. It's unfortunate but it is a fact and it isn't going away because of a few people fussing about it on a forum.
A violation of your Constitutional rights would occur if the police searched you without probable cause looking for evidence of criminal activity while you were out in public in general. It is not a violation of your Constitutional rights to search you on a voluntary basis for a specific reason (looking for bombs) as you enter a subway. Remember it is a voluntary search and it is not a fishing expedition either. Voluntary search means you can decline the search with no repercussion other than you will not be allowed on the subway at that time and place.
Gettin in late here. This is just another of "Popeye" Kelly's Potted Plant Policing Policies. He hasn't had an original idea since he instituted formal roll calls when he was in Customs.
Do you think any sane cop wants to stick his hand or nose into a bag that contains a bomb? Yeah, right!
In about 3 weeks Dumbberg will launch phase 2. As long as all those cops are hanging around subway stations doing nothing have them do about 10 summonses a tour for "Quality of Life" offenses. It'll make it worth the manpower expenditure.
Now that the NYPD starting salary will be $25,100 don't expect to have anything left of any value in that backpack once it's checked.
Have fun NYers and thanks for the checks.
Do you think any sane cop wants to stick his hand or nose into a bag that contains a bomb? Yeah, right!
In about 3 weeks Dumbberg will launch phase 2. As long as all those cops are hanging around subway stations doing nothing have them do about 10 summonses a tour for "Quality of Life" offenses. It'll make it worth the manpower expenditure.
Now that the NYPD starting salary will be $25,100 don't expect to have anything left of any value in that backpack once it's checked.
Have fun NYers and thanks for the checks.
I'm sorry that Mike did not "get" my rather sarcastic humor.
When I penned, ""Why, I'd pour some chlorine into that thar gene pool!" it was meant to denote the entire gene pool, not just some "RAG HEAD BASTARDS" as Mike wrote. My first comment was directly related to my next comment on the complacency of the American public, which Mike did partly "get."
...sigh...
I guess I should stop trying to be funny...
When I penned, ""Why, I'd pour some chlorine into that thar gene pool!" it was meant to denote the entire gene pool, not just some "RAG HEAD BASTARDS" as Mike wrote. My first comment was directly related to my next comment on the complacency of the American public, which Mike did partly "get."
...sigh...
I guess I should stop trying to be funny...
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Butch-
I think you have invented a wonderful new term of art for places where we might expect our Bill of Rights to apply:
"out in public in general". Your post describes that as any place where .gov chooses not to perform random searches. I think we may have a winning compromise there....after all, our politicians and bureaucrats would never abuse that power.
BTW, you have yet to respond to the operative question:
Just how will voluntary searches of every 5th person result in the capturing of suicide bombers? I mean, if you can't answer that question coherently, you're simply in support of a very dangerous Feel Good Law.
Rich
I think you have invented a wonderful new term of art for places where we might expect our Bill of Rights to apply:
"out in public in general". Your post describes that as any place where .gov chooses not to perform random searches. I think we may have a winning compromise there....after all, our politicians and bureaucrats would never abuse that power.
BTW, you have yet to respond to the operative question:
Just how will voluntary searches of every 5th person result in the capturing of suicide bombers? I mean, if you can't answer that question coherently, you're simply in support of a very dangerous Feel Good Law.
Rich
Question for Butch:
You state several times there is no Constitutional problem with random searches at subway stops to keep bombs off subways. What do you suppose NYPD will do to anyone who doesn't have a bomb, but does have a knife, or a Glock, or a few glassines of heroin, or some pornographic materials with young-looking models?
I'm guessin' it won't be "Have a nice day, and enjoy your subway ride!!"
Now, I'm not suggesting any constitutional right to commit a crime. But by definition, a search to prevent one criminal act (here, bombings) becomes a fishing expedition to cover all crimes. And random searches of the citizenry without probable cause to do so are precisely what the Fourth meant to address. And that is precisely what is being discussed in New York, Boston and, now, in Washington DC's Metro system.
You state several times there is no Constitutional problem with random searches at subway stops to keep bombs off subways. What do you suppose NYPD will do to anyone who doesn't have a bomb, but does have a knife, or a Glock, or a few glassines of heroin, or some pornographic materials with young-looking models?
I'm guessin' it won't be "Have a nice day, and enjoy your subway ride!!"
Now, I'm not suggesting any constitutional right to commit a crime. But by definition, a search to prevent one criminal act (here, bombings) becomes a fishing expedition to cover all crimes. And random searches of the citizenry without probable cause to do so are precisely what the Fourth meant to address. And that is precisely what is being discussed in New York, Boston and, now, in Washington DC's Metro system.
Wow, go away for a few days and have to scroll through 10 million messages. Sheesh, you people have alot of free time. 
If some of you feel so strongly that your rights are being violated, there are alot better ways to combat our evil government than by ranting about it on a forum. Ahem.....
Anyway, anyone who is familiar with my posts, or stance since I have been here knows I have done my duty and served a government I don't always agree with, because it was my duty, and that I am a big, loud-mouthed, obnoxious, overbearing, supporter of our Constitution and BOR. I realize that the searches violate 4th amendment rights. I realize that letting 'little violations' slip by, lead to bigger grabs at our individual rights and freedoms. But as a rational man, I also realize that indeed, at the risk of sounding sheeplike, something MUST BE DONE. But what you do, and how to do it without getting anyone's panties in a wad is the problem.
So what do you do? Cry about the searches as unconstitutional, or come up with a better method, that is NOT a violation of our rights?
If some of you feel so strongly that your rights are being violated, there are alot better ways to combat our evil government than by ranting about it on a forum. Ahem.....Anyway, anyone who is familiar with my posts, or stance since I have been here knows I have done my duty and served a government I don't always agree with, because it was my duty, and that I am a big, loud-mouthed, obnoxious, overbearing, supporter of our Constitution and BOR. I realize that the searches violate 4th amendment rights. I realize that letting 'little violations' slip by, lead to bigger grabs at our individual rights and freedoms. But as a rational man, I also realize that indeed, at the risk of sounding sheeplike, something MUST BE DONE. But what you do, and how to do it without getting anyone's panties in a wad is the problem.
So what do you do? Cry about the searches as unconstitutional, or come up with a better method, that is NOT a violation of our rights?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Delrius-
You're right, it does risk sounding sheeplike, especially in light of the fact that you, too, have not tackled the operative question:
Just how will voluntary searches of every 5th person result in the capturing of suicide bombers? I mean, if you can't answer that question coherently, you're simply in support of a very dangerous Feel Good Law.
Rich
You're right, it does risk sounding sheeplike, especially in light of the fact that you, too, have not tackled the operative question:
Just how will voluntary searches of every 5th person result in the capturing of suicide bombers? I mean, if you can't answer that question coherently, you're simply in support of a very dangerous Feel Good Law.
Rich
Rich, I'm not saying that the method that they are using isn't flawed, it is. But until someone comes up with a more effective way of doing it, it might at least 'deter' the bombers, or slow them down.
Would you feel better if they shut down the subway terminals to 1 entrance at strategic stations, and searched every single person to pass through, no matter the delays? Implement the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" mentality? Or if they used the evil dreaded profiling, and only searched middle-eastern people? Screw them, they're towel-heads, search 'em all? I mean realistically, in this day and age, faced with this situation, HOW DO you make things safer without violating rights? I am by no means advocating the violation of our rights, just saying, whats the alternative? How do you at least MAKE AN ATTEMPT to stop them?
Would you feel better if they shut down the subway terminals to 1 entrance at strategic stations, and searched every single person to pass through, no matter the delays? Implement the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" mentality? Or if they used the evil dreaded profiling, and only searched middle-eastern people? Screw them, they're towel-heads, search 'em all? I mean realistically, in this day and age, faced with this situation, HOW DO you make things safer without violating rights? I am by no means advocating the violation of our rights, just saying, whats the alternative? How do you at least MAKE AN ATTEMPT to stop them?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
You're evading the question, DT...and providing a red herring in the choices, "Search or Shut Down". I remain ready to be convinced, however, that we should give up freedoms for safety. To do that, I need to weigh the costs and the benefits. The costs, I can tell, but I'm still struggling with the benefits.
So, once again:
Just how will voluntary searches of every 5th person result in the capturing of suicide bombers?
Kindly be specific, even if anecdotal.
Rich
So, once again:
Just how will voluntary searches of every 5th person result in the capturing of suicide bombers?
Kindly be specific, even if anecdotal.
Rich
Intelligence-gathering, surveillance, and letting the police do what they were trained to do - use their experience and observational skills to develop articulable suspicion about specific individuals, instead of wasting their time searching the bags of the Catholic nun who happened to be fifth in line.
Truth be told Rich, it most likely won't do a damned thing. But the alternative, doing nothing, will achieve the same result. At least there is a chance that the 'improved security measures'
may deter the bombers.(I know, I know, just like banning guns 'might' cut down on crime....I see the comparison)
I admit, I don't HAVE a better solution....but I would like to see one.
I asked you:
So Rich, any ideas? Kindly be specific, even if anecdotal....
BerettaCougar
New member
If doing nothing.. means not invading someones privacy and infringing someones rights and saving NYC on the money that will be spent on OT, and not slowing down flow on the subways...
Then I'm all for doing nothing..
Now by doing nothing I did not mention Police officers not being in the subway..ready to nab someone who gives them PROBABLE CAUSE!!!!
Because unless they have probable cause... a reason they can use in court they cannot search you unless they have a warrant stating the exact place to be searched...
Are they calling the judges for a warrant every time they search someones bag or container? NO.. then they(government officials) are in direct violation of the constitution.
The every 5th person crap is just that...CRAP. doesnt take a rocket scientist to position yourself right behind the person being searched. or maybe behind that person.. as long as youre not the 5th person, youre okay..
But what if you dont have a package... and you have the explosive device on your person... or an improvised explosive concealed as an ordinary oxygen tank for our heavier terrorist...or someone acting like if they need the oxygen tank.
Or concealed as if it were a baby, a woman acting pregnant... are they going to make every pregnant woman show them their belly? YEAH F****NG RIGHT!
Then I'm all for doing nothing..
Now by doing nothing I did not mention Police officers not being in the subway..ready to nab someone who gives them PROBABLE CAUSE!!!!
Because unless they have probable cause... a reason they can use in court they cannot search you unless they have a warrant stating the exact place to be searched...
Are they calling the judges for a warrant every time they search someones bag or container? NO.. then they(government officials) are in direct violation of the constitution.
The every 5th person crap is just that...CRAP. doesnt take a rocket scientist to position yourself right behind the person being searched. or maybe behind that person.. as long as youre not the 5th person, youre okay..
But what if you dont have a package... and you have the explosive device on your person... or an improvised explosive concealed as an ordinary oxygen tank for our heavier terrorist...or someone acting like if they need the oxygen tank.
Or concealed as if it were a baby, a woman acting pregnant... are they going to make every pregnant woman show them their belly? YEAH F****NG RIGHT!
mvpel, I agree with you to a degree. But then you are 'profiling' people, and basing your searches on ethnic origin, or some other factor, and some will be just as mad, and rightly so about that, as will be mad about the searches to begin with. Its a catch 22. Your damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the police violate the 4th, they are evil, worthless, SCUM, trying to strip us of our rights, yet, if they actually stopped a bomber, they would be heroes. If they did NOTHING and we got bombed, the police would be evil, worthless, SCUM, who didn't even TRY to keep people safe.....
See where this goes?
See where this goes?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
DT-
Thanks, I didn't think you could point to any real benefit in this invasion; it just makes you "feel" better.
Anyone who can state:
"Truth be told Rich, it most likely won't do a damned thing."
demonstrates ear ringing cognitive dissonance in declaring:
"I am a big, loud-mouthed, obnoxious, overbearing, supporter of our Constitution and BOR"
The only way you can hold both those positions is thru lip service only dedication to the Bill of Rights; you can't truly believe in their importance, while insisting on their abrogation, absent benefit; rather you demonstrate a non-reasoned, emotional attachment to just one: the Second. This marginalizes your ability to support even that one.
Now I'll answer your question. How would I make things "safer"?
First I'd "enforce the laws that are already on the books". (Familiar ring?) I'm talking about Immigration Law and the Patriot Act that we have paid for with our tax dollars and our liberties. Until .gov hold up it's end of that deal, LAY OFF MY Bill of Rights. Period.
Additionally, I'd take that $100 mil per year search price and put it toward tracking down every single Visa Violator from a Muslim country. They do not enjoy the protections of the B.O.R., so "profiling" is not an issue. Even if it were, combining visa violation with countries known to export terrorism would probably pass muster under the "reasonable suspicion" standard.
I think that's a pretty good start.
Finally, I'd put "safety" into context. Americans are not in a "War on Terror"...there has been one attack in 4 years. American SOLDIERS are involved in that War. American subway riders are simply one possible target of a terror attack. In short, I'd outlaw the use of "War on Terror" in domestic policy; because it serves to brainwash and dumb down otherwise rational citizens into believing that we're the victims of daily attacks.
We're not; and while we are certain to be hit again, searching every 5th person, in one city, on one form of transportation provides nothing of benefit locally, yet sets precedent for future encroachments universally.
Finally, I'd remind people that even when this "War on Terror" is declared "over", it will, of necessity be replaced with a new Domestic War. That is my government's history over the past quarter century and I'm simply not tripping to the ruse.
Rich
ps: Please don't lay the LEO Bashing title on any of us. With one exception, no one here has criticized the cops doing the search. We're criticizing the bureaucrats placing them in that position. Similarly, nobody on this board EVER laid the blame for the 9-11 attacks at the foot of the NYPD. To portray us otherwise is simple fiction.
Thanks, I didn't think you could point to any real benefit in this invasion; it just makes you "feel" better.
Anyone who can state:
"Truth be told Rich, it most likely won't do a damned thing."
demonstrates ear ringing cognitive dissonance in declaring:
"I am a big, loud-mouthed, obnoxious, overbearing, supporter of our Constitution and BOR"
The only way you can hold both those positions is thru lip service only dedication to the Bill of Rights; you can't truly believe in their importance, while insisting on their abrogation, absent benefit; rather you demonstrate a non-reasoned, emotional attachment to just one: the Second. This marginalizes your ability to support even that one.
Now I'll answer your question. How would I make things "safer"?
First I'd "enforce the laws that are already on the books". (Familiar ring?) I'm talking about Immigration Law and the Patriot Act that we have paid for with our tax dollars and our liberties. Until .gov hold up it's end of that deal, LAY OFF MY Bill of Rights. Period.
Additionally, I'd take that $100 mil per year search price and put it toward tracking down every single Visa Violator from a Muslim country. They do not enjoy the protections of the B.O.R., so "profiling" is not an issue. Even if it were, combining visa violation with countries known to export terrorism would probably pass muster under the "reasonable suspicion" standard.
I think that's a pretty good start.
Finally, I'd put "safety" into context. Americans are not in a "War on Terror"...there has been one attack in 4 years. American SOLDIERS are involved in that War. American subway riders are simply one possible target of a terror attack. In short, I'd outlaw the use of "War on Terror" in domestic policy; because it serves to brainwash and dumb down otherwise rational citizens into believing that we're the victims of daily attacks.
We're not; and while we are certain to be hit again, searching every 5th person, in one city, on one form of transportation provides nothing of benefit locally, yet sets precedent for future encroachments universally.
Finally, I'd remind people that even when this "War on Terror" is declared "over", it will, of necessity be replaced with a new Domestic War. That is my government's history over the past quarter century and I'm simply not tripping to the ruse.
Rich
ps: Please don't lay the LEO Bashing title on any of us. With one exception, no one here has criticized the cops doing the search. We're criticizing the bureaucrats placing them in that position. Similarly, nobody on this board EVER laid the blame for the 9-11 attacks at the foot of the NYPD. To portray us otherwise is simple fiction.
"Additionally, I'd take that $100 mil per year search price and put it toward tracking down every single Visa Violator from a Muslim country. They do not enjoy the protections of the B.O.R., so "profiling" is not an issue."
Hold on a second...
While I certainly agree that people who are here illegally should be tracked down and deported, criminal suspects *do* enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights. If they did not, we would not have over two centuries of SCOTUS decisions clarifying how the BOR protections apply to criminal procedings.
Tim
Hold on a second...
While I certainly agree that people who are here illegally should be tracked down and deported, criminal suspects *do* enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights. If they did not, we would not have over two centuries of SCOTUS decisions clarifying how the BOR protections apply to criminal procedings.
Tim
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Tim-
I should amend that. I wasn't certain if "profiling" applies to foreign nationals.
Regardless, as (I think?) you point out, what I'm suggesting is not "profiling". It's simply rounding up known lawbreakers. Whether it would pass Constitutional inspection to, for instance, focus on those illegal aliens from specific countries or of specific age groups is something DOJ should be able to answer pretty damned easily.
Rich
I should amend that. I wasn't certain if "profiling" applies to foreign nationals.
Regardless, as (I think?) you point out, what I'm suggesting is not "profiling". It's simply rounding up known lawbreakers. Whether it would pass Constitutional inspection to, for instance, focus on those illegal aliens from specific countries or of specific age groups is something DOJ should be able to answer pretty damned easily.
Rich