Police to Check Bags on NYC Subways

[304065]

.

[speeder]

It may be constitutionally permissible, but talk about a technicality. Most people, (including myself), always assumed that the 4th amendment applied to public places. The subway is definitely a public place, it is certainly not a private place. (Any and all are allowed to use it, in theory).

All discretionary police searches rub me the wrong way, such as traffic stops where they search the car because someone fits an unreasonably broad "profile". It was determined at one time that the DEA's profile of potential drug trafficors at airports could include almost anyone. Or on the road, where "obeying the speed limit" would raise a caution flag.

And worst of all, these searches are incredibly inefficient/ineffective, terrorists have shown themselves to be a little more savvy and adaptable than that. And of course they would have to harass every other Swedish tourist and Asian schoolchild in order not to be racially profiling.

It's a double loser; you either live in a *****hole tinhorn country where everyone who doesn't look like an off-duty cop gets messed with, or the PC version where everyone gets an equal dose of stupid, ineffectual law enforcement.

They need to build the dam further upstream, a lot further. And it ain't in Iraq, so don't read this as an endorsement of the status quo.

[speeder]

Originally posted by john_cramer


In Boston, additional police officers were added at downtown subway stations after the latest round of London explosions, and Gov. Mitt Romney boarded a subway to reassure residents that the city's transit system is safe.

This always cracks me up; the statistically safest place in the solar system is on a jetliner the day after one crashes.

[bryanthompson]

NEW YORK -- Police will begin random searches of bags and packages carried by people entering city subways, officials announced Thursday after a new series of bomb attacks in London.

Random searches: basically going to be racial profiling, which I have no problem with. 100% of the 9/11 terrorists were muslim. had some skinny white guy from boston been piloting one of those planes, racial profiling wouldn't work. Will some skinny white guy be involved in the next attack? Probably not, but nobody thought that natives of London would be bombing their transportation systems either.

"The NYPD can and should investigate any suspicious activity, but the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from conducting searches where there is no suspicion of criminal activity," executive director Donna Lieberman said.

Kelly said passengers selected for searches will be approached by officers, who will ask them what they are carrying, and request them to open their bags. If an officer looking for explosives finds some other form of contraband, police said that person would be subject to arrest.

Andrew Morris, a 57-year-old New Yorker who had a large bag slung over his shoulder Thursday, said he would consent to a search if asked, but added that the extra security measures are essentially useless.

"I think these terrorists go where it's easiest to go, so if you make it hard on the subway, they'll go where we're weak," Morris said.

Anything suspicious should be pounced upon... wires hanging out of bags, someone acting strange (Joke about californians left out), etc. Civilians shoul be looking out for suspicious activity also. Grounding a plane because an old woman sees someone's iPod earbuds in a passenger's bag, is a little excessive though.

These searches aren't going to be much anyway, imho. Open your bag, fumble through your things for 2 seconds, and you're gone. Bombs would be pretty easy to spot in a bag, wouldn't they? Someone with books and laptop is going to be through the search in no time.

This Morris guy has a point, though... They'll find the weak point and exploit it. If not the subways, then something else...

[Superman]

This is a hot-button for me as well. Perhaps I am a conservative after all, except that I notice my liberal friends are just as fierce as I about this. I agree completely, John.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Two police officers denied me the privilege of riding the 1/9 once when got down to the platform on rollerblades.

Probably the stupidest thing I've ever done: rollerblades ---> third rail. not a good combo.

John, I completely agree. the terrorists have won in many ways. Many parts of the Patriot Act have long declared them the victors.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

Benjamin Franklin

[Jims5543]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Random searches: basically going to be racial profiling, which I have no problem with. 100% of the 9/11 terrorists were muslim. had some skinny white guy from boston been piloting one of those planes, racial profiling wouldn't work. Will some skinny white guy be involved in the next attack? Probably not, but nobody thought that natives of London would be bombing their transportation systems either.

Ding! Ding! Ding! How many attacks in how many countries do you think it is going to take before out and out racism sets in? You are 100% correct the police will be racial profiling and as these attacks happen more and more my comments in another thread about Middle Eastern appearing people having a tough time moving freely in this world will start to become a reality.

[bryanthompson]

I'm going to need to let that soak in, John... Good points there.

[artplumber]

Isn't this all posturing? Nobody believes that the police are really going to catch any terrorists getting ready to bomb the subway. Especially, with an announcement about random searches. It's all deterrent value and PR IMO.

[jyl]

John, you make good points. But how is this different from security screening at airports? You could argue that is even more intrusive - there are some practical alternatives to the subway (walk, cab) but not really any practical alternative way to get from LAX to JFK.

Is the objection more to discriminatory searches (e.g. everyone of Middle Eastern and Asian descent gets searched while white passengers sail by) than to the concept of searches? Suppose the subway bag checks were of every bag over a certain size regardless of who carries it or, alternatively, suppose the checks were truly and demonstrably random. Would that be better?

[Z-man]

Interesting thread. Some ideas:

1. Tel-Aviv airport is perhaps the most secure airport in the world. They is no such thing as random searching there -- EVERYONE's bags get opened and checked. Military are all over that place. 3.5 million commuters travel the NYC subway system - is a search of all of them possible every day? I don't know. See through bags and/or NOT allowing bags on the subway may be an alternative, though again, not very feasible.

2. The terrorists care nothing about liberty and freedoms. Their game is played with a different set of rules. I suspect the Mr. Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers may have strongly considered adding a few more points to those documents which are the foundation of our country had they been dealing with the same things as we are. Times, they are a changing. And something needs to be done to protect ourselves from those radicals who believe blowing up innocent citizens of a country they are enemies with is the solution.

3. The world as we know it drastically changed after 9-11. Perhaps this will be considered pivotal point that will define our generation. Some may argue that it was the "Day the Constitution Died." Others may see it as an opportunity to reshape our country. The bottom line is: this country will never be the way it was prior to that dreadful day.

4. The US government has it's hands full with this one -- how far should they go to protect their borders, their citizens without infringing on their freedoms? We walk on thin ice here.

-Z.

[gaijindabe]

Soon we will all be riding the subway in our tighty-whities. It wont be pretty.

[Burnin' oil]

John,

I would disagree with the premise that we are a free society. With freedom and liberty comes responsibility and risk. As responsibility decreases and (the perception of) risk increases, freedom decreases. We are strictly regulated in everything we do and the noose is tightening. The legacy of 9-11 is more state intrusion into and control over personal freedom.

[mikester]

Originally posted by john_cramer
Bryan, I would like to take issue with a couple of your points. I understand where you are coming from, but let me offer an alternative that you might consider.

First of all, I want you to understand that the concept of "liberty" does NOT permit things like racial profiling. Yes, it may be "expedient" insofar as recent terror activities have been conducted by Islamic male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40. But here's the critical point.

A society that is characterized by racial profiling and other invasions of civil liberties is LESS DESIRABLE than one that is not, which occasionally suffers from the effects of terrorism.

I'll repeat that: the price of Liberty is BLOOD. We paid for it in the revolution, we paid for it in our own struggle to preserve the Union, we paid for it in four extraterritorial wars outside our own borders to preserve a power balance favorable to our way of life, and today, we pay for it on the streets where we live. YOU. I.

Nobody questions that empowering law enforcement with the ability to stop and search everyone without probable cause would probably result in lower crime, and lower drunk driving, and fewer deaths from terrorism. And yet, even irrespective of the economic cost of doing that, our society has chosen, time and again, that we prefer to be free of such invasions of privacy, EVEN IF WE ARE AT HIGHER RISK, vs. the alternative.

Let's personalize it: What is the meaning of the word SACRIFICE? It means that your old buddy JOHN CRAMER is killed on his way to work one day in the NYC subway. His death might have been preventable if there had been more checks, more searches, more profiling.

But the society we live in would be cheapened as a result of those measures, which is both what the agents of terror desire, and also those who by their own nature seek to limit the liberty of others for their own sense of control.

Is it worth it? Is the risk that I will be killed riding the Subway worth living in a society where people can be free to move about without being detained because of their race, and race alone?

Absolutely. Even if it means I go to work one day and never come home.

Please consider also that whomever we single out today may not be singled out tomorrow. A few years ago, when you heard of a terror bomb in London, it meant IRA. And the last thing that guys like Overpaid Slacker and I need is being detained on our way to the Pub.

John - that was awesome and true. Please run for president.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by Burnin' oil
John,

I would disagree with the premise that we are a free society. With freedom and liberty comes responsibility and risk. As responsibility decreases and (the perception of) risk increases, freedom decreases. We are strictly regulated in everything we do and the noose is tightening. The legacy of 9-11 is more state intrusion into and control over personal freedom.

I would disagree that we are not. And the legacy of 9-11 is more blue haired old ladies being frisked in the airport and not much more. As for the subways - ride at your own risk.. a few more cops in the past two days. They look as bored as usual...

Where we are less free we cannot blame on OBL and his ilk. The biggest risk to personal freedom is the onerous tax and regulatory environment we live in. Want to quit your job and live on the cheap? That aint going to work when the tax bill comes..

Car aint passing that emissions test -or- aint got insurance to cover the lawsuit because someone slipped on the ice out front - you are out of luck..

Get in a row with the wife and "order of protection" gets issued? Watch how they come take your guns, kick you out of your house and take you drivers licence when you cant pay child support.

The world we are living in is mostly of our own making.

[Burnin' oil]

Gaijindabe,

I agree with what you're saying. My point is that random (lacking probable cause) searches are a gross violation of Fourth Amendment rights. What is the justification? To catch or deter terrorists? Is the benefit worth the cost? I don't think so.

[gaijindabe]

If you rode the subway everyday, you may feel differently. A officer trained to spot certain things (and we may not know exactly what the profile is) is not exactly random. Most of this I see as PR. People like to believe they are being protected..

But a lot of what is needed is good police work and good intelligence. All these folks in the London incidents were connected, and were connected to other terrorists. Only one or two degrees between them, an ugly guy in a cave and others living free in this country..

[84porsche]

I usually try to stay away from these threads but John you made some very good points. I am partially of Middle East decent but I was born here and have lived here my entire life. I have been searched at airports in quite detail but not because of racial profiling but because of a gum wrapper in my shirt pocket that I didn't see.

However, when I went to apply for a United States passport, I had some difficulty. My father was born in Palestine and I listed this on the application and I received a letter from the issuing agency requiring proof of my existence as an American citizen from yearbook photos, diploma, birth certificate, to prints (finger and feet) identification etc. Was I upset about this invasion, yes a little but it is the cost of my freedom. And for this freedom, I would rather be safe than sorry from all these terrorists and subject myself to a search. You get searched going to a ballpark so I don't think going on a subway is much different.

My father has had many wrongs happen in his life but he didn't become a terrorist, he moved on with his life, put himself through school, worked several jobs when he moved here and become a success. His family lost so much but found a way to survive and start over.

I understand that many terrorists are Muslim or Middle Eastern looking people but racial profiling is not the means to an end. I disagree with this policy sincerely. We have to find another way to identify the radicals and stop them. I don't know the answer but as far as searches, I think we should continue these as long as needs be until we prevent incidents like the bombings from happening.

As far as the terrorists winning by instilling fear in us Americans or the British, maybe they have but maybe they haven't. We have made a conscious decision or we have put in place through voting our decision makers who believe that this is the best course to safety so we are still exercising our freedom to subject ourselves to this. When and if it goes to far, we have to exercise our political viewpoints and or voting to correct the situation and revert back to the previous position.