NYC Mayor Deserves Neither Freedom Nor Safety

[rhubarb]

via Drudge:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101127_pf.html

NEW YORK -- Police on Thursday began random searches of bags and packages carried by people entering city subways, a new security measure announced after another round of bomb attacks in London.

"We just live in a world where, sadly, these kinds of security measures are necessary," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "Are they intrusive? Yes, a little bit. But we are trying to find that right balance."

...

The announcement drew complaints from civil liberties advocates in a city where an estimated 4.5 million passengers ride the subway on an average weekday. The system has more than 468 subway stations _ most with multiple entrances _ and the flood of commuters hurrying in and out of stations during rush hour can be overwhelming.

Kelly stressed that officers posted at subway entrances would not engage in racial profiling, and that passengers are free to "turn around and leave."

...

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.

Did Mr. Morris hit the nail on the head or what? Violate our Fourth Amendment rights for what? Boneheads. They'd be better off giving each n every New Yorker a Jennings .22. That'd make the terrorists sit up and take notice.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...we are trying to find that right balance.

Bloomberg's idea of "that right balance" would delight Lenin.

 

[foghornl]

Bloomberg's idea of "that right balance" would delight Lenin.

Stalin & Rasputin would be performing a duet while Khruschev dances in the streets and Fidel lights a cigar . .

 

[shermacman]

How about the idea of shutting off cell phone service in tunnels?
Slowly, surely, we are undermining ourselves. They don't have to invade, we are killing our own freedoms, choking our own country. Ultimately, we will end up living in mud huts, eating bugs cooked over camel dung fires just like the Taliban.

 

[30 cal slob]

I believe the random checks apply not just to NYC transit, but all tri-state (NY, NJ, CT) area commuter rail and buses as well.

We started getting announcements on the train yesterday that all backpacks and packages are subject to random searches.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as gung-ho on privacy as anyone else here, but it looks like NY's so far are taking it in stride. Can't really beef that much about it - if we submit to complete scrutiny in airports, random searches in the rest of public transit is fair game, IMO.

Since the London bombings, armed Nat'l Guard and transit police have been present at every station.

What a waste - if NYC and NJ were right-to-carry they wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Derby FALs]

Don't get me wrong, I'm as gung-ho on privacy as anyone else here,

I don't think so, Tim...

 

[mhdishere]

OK, I live in NJ and work in NYC, I commute by subway every day, so I think I have some perspective.

Do I consider this a violation? Yes, I do. If a cop asked me to open my backpack (which I carry daily to work) would I? I don't know, it would depend on the mood I'm in, if I feel like being argumentative or not. If I refuse I'd probably just go to another entrance where, since the searches are random, I'd probably get thru without a look.

Is this an illegal search? I suspect not, because they ask your permission and you can refuse.

The thing that bugs me is that they're so against "profiling" that they'll be emphatically NOT searching the people who are most likely to be suicide bombers, the 75 year old Italian woman with a rosary saying "Hail Mary..." will get searched and the 18 year old Middle Eastern man with a Koran saying "72 virgins" won't.

New flash: If someone wants to detonate a bomb in the NYC subway there's no way to prevent it. None.

 

[rock jock]

New flash: If someone wants to detonate a bomb in the NYC subway there's no way to prevent it. None.

It depends on how determined the terrorists are. Random checks may dissuade them from the subway to a softer target. Their odds of being caught were 0%, now they are 20%. This is something they will definitely consider when planning.

 

[Frandy]

...they ask your permission and you can refuse.

Yeah, when I first read this yesterday, I thought, "Oh, terrorist says 'No, thank you' and then turns away to find an entrance where he/she is not checked."

 

[hkOrion]

If a cop asked me to open my backpack (which I carry daily to work) would I? I don't know, it would depend on the mood I'm in, if I feel like being argumentative or not. If I refuse I'd probably just go to another entrance where, since the searches are random, I'd probably get thru without a look.

OK - we can think of this. Does the NYPD really think that terrorists are THAT stupid? Keep trying until you get in, or go to another rail station. DUH!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Just another step on the road to a police state. The terrorists have won. We have swopped our liberty for a false sense of security.

 

[rick_reno]

We need a new Federal law that requires ALL terrorists to wear purple top hats and size 15 clown shoes. Then the police would know who to search.

What I liked seeing on TV were the cops (?) dressed in their real tree camo in what looked Grand Central Station. I'm pretty sure they were trying to blend in with the native flora and fauna.

The good news is the Patriot Act was approved in a vote in the House yesterday.

 

[Marshall]

The good news is the Patriot Act was approved in a vote in the House yesterday.

By a decent majority too. I think, IIRC, 44 Dems voted for it.

 

[Paco]

I live in the City and I am utterly horrified by this, guys. This is bad, very, very bad. What next, random house searches? This move will not make us safer, it just won't and even if it did, I wouldn't want to take it. Cutting all people's hands off would make us safer too.....

-paco

 

[Graystar]

Is this an illegal search? I suspect not, because they ask your permission and you can refuse.

Yes, it's illegal because your freedom to travel is restricted if you don't comply.

There's also a serious duress factor here. Unlike other parts of the country, you can't simply decide to drive to work today. Most of the people don't own cars, and even if they have one there's no place to park in Manhattan. You’re practically forced to take the subway to get to work.

I think I’ll pack up my guns and take a trip to the range in Manhattan.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Too bad the bombers/terrorists so far don't have anything in common, you know, something that might help narrow the searches and focus on likely suspects. That must be why they have to do 'random' searches.

 

[Rebar]

Where is the couragous legislator who will intoduce a bill it revoke all the rediculous anti-gun laws in NYC? If the citizens of NYC are in the front lines on the war on terror, it is necessary for them to be armed.

 

[Turkey Creek]

Just another thing to make me realize that leaving MoTown 35 years ago for a rural setting is one of the best things I ever did in my life- somehow I just don't see my local Sherif stopping me to see if the weapons in my truck in plain view might be a potential terrorist threat, let alone randomly stopping me to see if I've gone over to the to the goofy looking guys wearing towels on their heads-

 

[Beethoven]

They'd be better off giving each n every New Yorker a Jennings .22. That'd make the terrorists sit up and take notice.

Yeah, it'd make them notice that we don't really care about our safety!!!

Give the people REAL guns; Colt 1911's or Glocks!!!

 

[dpesec]

Airport searches

I'm against them too. I wasn't happy but I did them because it's a private company at both sides. The airline is private company and can set its own rules, and the company doing the search was also private.
Now we have the government doing the search, this is abhorant. I've only flown twice since then both because there was no other way to get to my destination.
If it's in the CONUS I'll fly myself.

 

[dpesec]

Beethoven

.22s will do enough damage. How many people are on a train car? Each one shoots once. Talk about the deaths of a thousand cuts.

 

[pcf]

1. Terrorist have no interest in attacking large groups of people, such as, those that stand large lines/groups waiting to be searched. No interest at all. Terrorist attacks that occur prior to checkpoints are not fatal. An interesting note, no Israeli has ever been killed or injured by a suicide bomber that has not crossed a checkpoint.

2. Terrorist only want to attack inanimate subway cars, subway cars are a physical representation of capitalist ideology and must be destroyed. Notice that the suicide bombers in London did not target the Public Transit System, only the cars of the "tube," they had to destory those cars. Buses, malls, schools, stores, and restaurants have never been terrorist targets.

3. Terrorist do not wish or need to cause an ideological change in a people. Nor do terrorist measure there success by how much change a government takes in response to their attacks. Feeling that one has forced a people to change by violent action is never feeling of success.

 

[30 cal slob]

One ironic thing I see here is that there are lines being formed where searches are being conducted (subways, grand central and penn stations).

If a suicide bomber wanted another convenient target of large clusterf*cked crowds, he just got one, especially around rush hour.

Anyways, it's packages that are being searched, not persons (as far as I can tell). How much boom boom can you carry on your body and detonate, assuming hot weather and bomb-sniffing dogs aren't an issue?

 

[toivo]

I have to laugh at this notion of "refusing a search." It seems to me that once you do that, you immediately become a "person of interest," and the police can search you at will.

It's a cat-and-mouse game, and I'm afraid it's going to be with us for quite a while. There is no way to make a modern urban setting completely safe without drastic reductions in personal freedom. The thing is that the danger is a matter of odds: each person's chances of getting to work in one piece are pretty good, statistically. The reduction in freedom is universal: EVERYONE loses.

Governments are desperate to be seen to be "doing something." It would be political suicide for any elected official to say that nothing can be done; better to do something meaningless than to do nothing. Hence bag searches.

 

[ken grant]

searches

All of you that are against bag searches,what other thing
can you offer that will work. People are good at pointing out what is wrong , but don't offer any suggestions as to what to do in its place.
The Dems are very good about finding things wrong with everything the Bush people do but offer nothing in their place.