NYC Police to Search Commuters' Bags Starting Tomorrow >

[Stephanie]

That's it. New York is over. I am so out of here. Thanks George!! :hi: Thanks Bloomie!! :hi:

I am SICK of living in a freaking police state. This is the last straw.

Hey George, are we still winning that WAR ON TERROR?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/nyregion/21cnd-security.html?hp&oref=login

In New Security Move, New York Police to Search Commuters' Bags

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
and SEWELL CHAN
Published: July 21, 2005

New York City will begin tomorrow morning randomly checking bags at subway stations, commuter railways and on buses, officials announced today in the wake of the terrorist bombings in London.

This is the first time the city has undertaken such a security effort of this scale on the commuter transportation system.

"We will be instituting random searches of bags and packages as people enter the transit system," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, adding that the city is consulting with its attorneys to formulate a plan. "We're going to do it in a reasonable, common-sense way."

***

"The police can and should be aggressively investigating anyone they suspect is trying to bring explosives into the subway," said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. "However, random police searches of people without any suspicion of wrongdoing are contrary to our most basic constitutional values. This is a very troubling announcement."

[Cha]

1. I wonder how much that

will help? "Random"?

If the bushits had been doing their job in the First place..the WTC would still be there.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. Random my ass!

[Cha]

39. Yeah, right..

I know they randomly checked my luggage at the airport once cause I was wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap(I'm guessing).

[Joan of Arc]

174. Random

What's the alternative? Profiling?? And why would there have been a reason to check bags before September 11, 2001, that the public would have accepted?

[Cha]

175. I'm not saying they should have

been checking bags before 9/11..I'm saying they should have been Doing their Jobs.

[Goldmund]

2. Where are you gonna go? Dallas?

[DCWageSlave]

3. No warrant - no probable cause - no legal search

This will be overturned as soon as the first case hits a court. In the meantime just refuse to consent to a 'random' search if you're picked.

[Beetwasher]

5. I Will Start Carrying A Copy of The Constitution W/ Me

n/t

[rodeodance]

7. brought to you by the Patriot Act no doubt.

[northzax]

32. I'm sure they will walk you back to the surface

if the price of getting on is a bag check, then you will have your bag checked. same principle as airplanes.

[SouthernDem2004]

75. Its the same as airport searches which are legal. /nt

[shadowknows69]

173. and be taken to gitmo

n/t

[Beetwasher]

4. Random=Dark Skin

Random my ass.

[KarenInMA]

6. They did this here, in Boston, during the convention

People wore these little "I do not consent to a search" buttons. The transit cops told them that they would, or they could get off the T- it's not a private car.

If you are opposed to this, you have to be willing to be opposed to searches at airlines as well. Same idea.

[GeekMonkey]

10. and i am opposed to searches at airports

especially since they do ZERO to protect anyone

[KarenInMA]

20. zero? really?

If you really want to kill someone, and you are prepared to die, than yes, you can do so. But we can keep people from bringing SOME dangerous material on an airplane.

Personally, I think we ahould do a better job searching the cargo holds on the planes. How hard is it to get a job as a baggage handler and plant a bomb on a plane? That's my real concern.

[Ravenseye]

21. Ah Shucks

You mean, under your plan, my brown skinned ass won't be searched 'randomly' every time I fly again? Shucks.

[KarenInMA]

28. if it makes you feel better,

I, for some reason, always get searched on planes, and I'm the whitest little white girl. They always plow through my stuff, wand me, etc etc.

For me, I guess it's bad luck. For you? Well,I guess you look like a "terrarist".

[Stephanie]

29. Really? What does a "terrarist" look like?

[KarenInMA]

45. you apparently!!

;)



(just to clarify, because, apparently, I offend people- that was meant as a JOKE about the serious problem of racial profiling, not as a slur against whatever ethnicity you happen to be)

[Ravenseye]

82. lol

I've had people tell me I should shave my beard off because it makes me look more like a terrorist. I've told them to cut off their tongue because it makes them sound more like an asshole.

[GeekMonkey]

87. ROFL! cut off their tongue! hahahahaha

too fucking funny!

love it!

[smbolisnch]

142. lmao, good one!

:rofl:

[Stephanie]

11. Not the same at all

This is about my right to freely go about my daily business in the city.

[KarenInMA]

14. Same thing, different scale.

The Transit cops are trying to stop terrorists (home grown or imported) from taking out mass transit.

[Stephanie]

25. Do you think I am stupid?

I am AWARE of what their reasoning is. I OPPOSE it. Okay? It's outrageous.

[northzax]

37. you can oppose it, it'd stupid an useless

but they have the right to do it, just as they have the right to search you at an airport. you have alternatives, should you need to avoid the search, use them.

[Beetwasher]

44. Umm, Actually, The Constitutions Expressly Forbids This

as "Unreasonable Search and Seizure". The right lies w/ the citizen to be protected AGAINST this sort of thing, NOT w/ the gov't. There's no probable cause. The gov't certainly does NOT have ANY right to do this.

While I understand this does happen at airports, that's the exception. It is not the gov't's "right" to do this though.

[KarenInMA]

50. You would need to fight the probable cause

part in court.

However,the current political landscape would ensure that these searches would be ruled as "reasonable".

The Patriot Act just had parts of it reinstated. :puke:

I highly doubt a judge would stop these searches.


OTOH, say you were caught with something illegal in your bag. You could argue that they transit cops stopped you to see if you had a bomb, but had no right to search you for drugs, so therefore, they can't be used against you. Maybe. I'm not sure.

[Beetwasher]

53. Well, We'll See

I'm sure we'll see some cases out of this. This is a slippery slope if there ever was one and I don't like slippery slopes.

[northzax]

59. it's not mandatory

it is for people using an accomodation. You can be protected, simply don't walk down those stairs into the subway. If this were the street, I would be with you, but the issue on transportation has been long ago decided. It happens at airports, train stations, bus depots, sea ports, entering office buildings, etc.

That said, this is a useless mechanism, it will not deter terror, only annoy people.

[Beetwasher]

65. Bullshit, Try Walking Away After They Ask You To Search Your Bag

See what happens.

It is in essence mandatory for people who MUST take the train to get to work.

[northzax]

69. it's mandatory to enter the subway system?

they are publically stating that they will be conducting random searches in the subway system. the minute you enter, you consent to the search.

[Beetwasher]

73. Yes, It Is, For Many People

It is absolutely mandatory for them to get to work. They have no other options.

[northzax]

78. sure they do.

they could walk, or bike, or take a cab. they could move closer to work, of find a job closer to home. the subway is the most efficient and convenient way, but it's not mandatory.

[Stephanie]

81. sure, why don't you do that? why don't you move.

or walk to work. you have the extra time and money, right? just take a cab, no problem.

[northzax]

90. this is absurd

because, at this time, the inconvenience of security on the metro isn't worth the opportunity cost of doing any of these things. if I had to start waiting in hour long lines to get on the 'tro, I would find another way. But I don't.

If you can't get from your home to your work in a manner that is convenient for you, then you need to decide which you like least, the job or the home. If giving up neither is worth it to you, then deal with the inconvenience.

[Beetwasher]

93. If This Were ONLY About Inconvenience, I'd Have No Problem

But it's not. It's about the persistent stripping of our rights as citizens and the whittling down of the constitution. I guess you have no problem w/ that, huh?

Talk about absurd. I think it's absurd to defend something that is so obviously and grossly unconstitutional. How easily you give up your inalienable rights.

[Beetwasher]

84. Wrong

It is, in essence, mandatory for many people to make their livelihoods. Some people can't walk, can't bike, can't afford cabs and can't afford to quit their jobs. Stop being ridiculous, you know damn well many, many people have no choice but to take the subway. Either you're not from NY or you're being extremely ridiculous.

And the search doesn't have to meet the criteria of being mandatory anyway, it only has to be unreasonable. Your strawman is noted.

[northzax]

95. the search isn't mandatory

I never said that. I plainly said that, since it is advertised in advance and that using the system is not mandatory, that such a search is, theoretically at least, consitutional.don't like the search? don't take the subway. Don't want to have your bag x-rayed? don't take a plane. I will accept that, if someone is imprisoned, by court order, in a house, and has to take the subway to work, mandated by a court, then it is mandatory. otherwise it's just more convenient. stop being obtuse about this.

[Beetwasher]

99. Mandatory is Irrelevant, Whether it's the Search or the Subway Ride

It's STILL and unreasonable search and it's in violation of the constitution. What's so hard to understand about that. Searching anyone and/or everyone randomly is unreasonable. Period.

Furthermore, taking the subway IS NOT VOLUNTARY for many people. It is you who is being obtuse and quite frankly, ridiculous.

[northzax]

106. I'm just telling you what the courts say about it

and they have consistently upheld this type of advertised search. and they will for this one too. And since, by definition, the Supreme Court determines what's constitutional, you lose.

airplanes are mandatory for many people, and yet, searches! It's mandatory, by your definition, that I walk through a government building a few times a week. yup, searched. either all these are 'unreasonable' or none of them is. I am not really forced into any of them. I can always not go through the building, or not see my family, if I don't want to be searched. same difference.

[Beetwasher]

109. I've Said Before, Mandatory is a Bullshit Strawman and Yet you keep Using

it. It's bullshit and irrelevant.

Everyone is searched at airports (private anyway) and in gov't buildings. Doing random searches in subways is different and an abuse just waiting to happen.

You must enjoy giving your rights away so freely.

[northzax]

112. so it is the random that's your problem?

they aren't searching enough people? if they searched everyone, you'd be ok with it?

[Beetwasher]

118. I Guess You're OK W/ The Gradual Stripping Of Your Rights

I'm not. How freely we give up our rights when we are frightened. How pathetic.

[northzax]

121. DUCK!

oh, sorry, I was going to ask you another question and I wanted to give you fair warning.

so, yes or no, if this was a blanket search it would be consitutional, in your opinion?

[Beetwasher]

126. Pfffft!

Absolutes are for Republicans and fascists. The world is grey.

In this instance, no. This is being done out of fear and for control, not security.

[northzax]

133. but you said blanket searches

at airports were acceptable. why planes and not trains? Why do I get searched going to a food court, but because it's in a government building, it's ok, and not on the subway?

I didn't ask for an absolute, I'm talking about this particular incidence. We know they target trains, why no searches? because it inconveniences you?

[Beetwasher]

134. Then Why Not EVERY Train In the Country?

Why not anyone carrying a backpack or a bag anywhere?

Why have any limitations on searches at all then?

How idiotic. In effect, what you're saying is the 4th amendment is meaningless. Maybe that's ok w/ you, but not me.

If the gov't wants to do this, let them pass a law first.

[northzax]

139. it would cost too much

so there won't be searches on every train. but there could be. I guess the bright line of you paying to enter a system is not enough for you? you pays your money, you takes the searches along with it.

you don't pay, you don't get searched.

[Beetwasher]

144. Why Don't We Just Elimiate the 4th Amendment? What Utter Bullshit

Because that's essentially what you're advocating.

If the gov't wants to do this, let them pass a law. They had to mandate the security at airports, let them do it for trains then. Something like this should not be done through fiat. It essentially negates the 4th amendment with no process involved and that's bullshit. But it's ok w/ you, huh?

[Mnemosyne]

183. It sounds as if the next phrase in post #95 might be

If you have nothing to hide, you don't have to worry.

:wtf: :crazy:

I'm with you Beet, unreasonable. Period!:patriot:

[Stephanie]

77. in the same way it is mandatory for you to enter your car to get to work

we don't have cars - we have the subway

[northzax]

80. actually I take the train myself

but it's not mandatory. I can move, or find a different job, or ride my bike. more convenient, but not mandatory.

mandatory means something you are required to do, with no options. like pay your taxes. not something that you prefer to do.

[Stephanie]

83. semantics

other options are NOT an option for most subway commuters and we are talking MILLIONS of people

[northzax]

101. and they cannot legally move?

they're in jail? the work is required? if they don't work at that specific job, they will go to prison? that's mandatory. otherwise it's convenience.

by the way, if the subway went up to $200/trip, would you still use it? note that's two hundred dollars, if it's truley mandatory, you would. think about that.

I'm not talking, and I've made this clear, about the practicalities of the searches, which I have said repeatedly are stupid and a waste of resources, but about the constitutionality of them.

[Beetwasher]

103. Searching People Randomly, at the States Whim is The Very Definition

of an unreasonable search. It is a gross violation of the constitution. How is that difficult for you to comprehend? Even IF the subway were completely voluntary (and it's not), it's still an unreasonable search. Period.

[northzax]

107. so you'd be fine if they searched everyone?

blanket searches?

please feel free to provide me with the supreme court decisions about searching people on public transportation. go ahead. they don't agree with you.

[Beetwasher]

111. Nonsense

The courts have upheld the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure many, many times and many cases have been tossed because of it.

[northzax]

116. throw one down then

I want to know a case in which the Court ruled that a search on public transportation was unreasonable.

[Beetwasher]

129. I'm Not A Lawyer

and I'm not going to dig through cases, and frankly, I could care less.

The 4th ammendment is all I need to be familiar with.

[northzax]

143. I noticed

you probably should read up a bit though, learn how the courts define unreasonable and all, it's a bit different from you.

[Beetwasher]

147. Coming From Someone Who

Has no problems w/ the 4th amendment being essentially nullified, I think I won't take your word for it.

[northzax]

152. I'm just telling you what the Supreme Court will say

the city will win the case. deal.

[Beetwasher]

154. Umm, What Case?

You have no idea what the case will even be, Mrs. Cleo. I wouldn't be too sure.

[northzax]

160. I will bet you $100 that if a case

claiming that random searches on the subway are unreasonable gets to the Supreme Court, they will say there was no violation.

now, there might be a civil rights case, if the searches are targeted, that might win, but not for unreasonable.

you in?

[Beetwasher]

162. LOL!

I could care less about betting. How silly and pathetic.

Tell you what, if that happens, feel free to crow loudly about how we're being stripped of our rights and how happy you are about it. :eyes:

[northzax]

164. you asked for a case

I gave you the type of case I was talking about.

I guess I could state, once again for the record, as I have in 6 other posts on this thread that this is a bad idea. but it is consitutional. sorry about that. that particular right left the building a long time ago.

do you always respond to things your dislike with snorts of derision? no wonder you like New York so much.

[im10ashus]

184. WHAT?

Are you saying New Yorker's respond to things of dislike with snorts of derision? I agree with the fact that there's nothing we can do about them searching our backpacks. We gave up far more liberties with the Patriot Act. But I would not say we have a snort reaction to things we dislike. We have been known to be very verbally vocal when the occasion presents itself. :-)

[Beetwasher]

185. You Have Not Presented A Case

and you certainly have not shown it's constitutional, as it is most obviously not.

If you've got problems w/ snorts of derision, stay off the internet. It's not just New Yorkers, but anyone who values their rights.

Do you always applaud and defend the stripping of your rights like a good fascist?

[Stephanie]

151. BS semantics

those are not real choices. people cannot move or change jobs easily, obviously. There is a wide range between "mandatory" and "convenience" and you are being deliberately obtuse. For all practical purposes there is no other option than the subway for MILLIONS of people who are unwilling or unable to MOVE AWAY OR FIND ANOTHER JOB. God what utter bullshit you are arguing.

[northzax]

161. I am only telling you what the law of the land says

sorry you don't like it. elect better leaders.

[Beetwasher]

86. It Doesn't Have To MANDATORY Anyway, That's A Bullshit Strawman

It merely has to be UNREASONABLE. Your strawman is noted.

[northzax]

97. for the third time

I'll try to type more slowly. By entering the subway, a voluntary activity, you are consenting to the search. Your consent, by entering the system, where you know searches may take place makes the search reasonable.

is this really this hard to get?

[Beetwasher]

100. You Need To Stop Being Willfully Ignorant

The subway is not voluntary for many, many people. And even if it was, it's irrelevant.

The search is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. Period. Whether you know about the search or not.

Keep giving up your rights, until you have none left.

[northzax]

102. then it is unreasonable to search at airports?

at the front gate of the white house? at nuclear waepons facilities? al are unreasonable by the standard you are setting.

I'll ask you the same question. if the subway, all or a sudden, cost $50.00 a trip, would you still take it?

[Beetwasher]

105. Bullshit Strawmen

Everyone is searched (or screened) at airports (which are private anyway). Same w/ the WH and Nuclear Facilities.

[northzax]

110. but you said searching everyone

was unreasonable too. is that really your problem? that they aren't searching everyone, cause it's not what you've been saying.

and who said airports are private? Our local airports were built with taxpayer dollars, are operated by a board accountable to elected officials, get tax dollars to operate. hell, one (National) is in a fucking national park. what's more public than that?

[Beetwasher]

114. My Problem Is The Erosion Of Our Rights

Something that you are obviously ok with. That's your perogative, I think it's dangerous.

[northzax]

119. so you do have a problem with blanket searches?

I'm having trouble following you. should really be a yes or no answer. please?

[Beetwasher]

125. It Depends

Nothing is ever black and white, unless you're a Republican.

[ultraist]

127. There is a fundamental difference between...

being searched by the GOV'T without probable cause or a warrant and being searched by a private airline company before using their service. The airline customer agrees, when they purchase that service, that they will adhere to the airlines security policies.

Random searches by the GOV'T in public places with NO warrant (or probable cause) are unconstitutional.

This simply opens the door for any cop to search us, our homes, or our vehicles when they please.

[northzax]

136. the government mandates security at airports

and provides them through TSA. So that's the government searching you. is the subway, a thing you pay to get on, truely a public place in the context of this? what's the real difference between a subway car and an airplane? both are means of conveyance, both are restricted to those who pay.

[ultraist]

145. Yes, subways ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY

Just as our public parks. OUR tax money pays for them and the workers are GOV'T employees.

It doesn't matter that gov regs mandate PRIVATE companies to adhere to certain policies. That has nothing to do with PRIVATE vs. PUBLIC.

PRIVATE auto companies must adhere to gov regulations and safety standards too, does that mean that our vehicles can be searched too?

[northzax]

150. so are military bases,

the white house, Amtrak, and, in fact, the airports themselves.

TSA employees are public employees. they work for the government, not United or Delta. they're no different than a poorly trained FBI agent.

[KarenInMA]

38. I never called you stupid!!!

I'm saying that this is the only solution that people have to make themselves feel safer. Will it make them safer? Maybe a little. But is someone wants to blow up the subway, and they don't care if they die while doing it, then they will. You can't stop suicide bombers. You might catch some, but not all. Won't happen.

The people on the train FEEL safer seeing lots of transit cops milling about with the bomb sniffing dogs and whatnot. That's the REALITY.You can oppose it all you want, but until the rest of the people on the trains/plane/bus oppose it, searches won't be stopped.

[Stephanie]

48. I certainly do NOT feel safer with bomb sniffing dogs and "whatnot"

You don't know what you're talking about. Right now there are cops in SWAT gear in Grand Central. There are bomb sniffing dogs and cops in helmets and state troopers and national guard. I don't feel safer. It makes me nervous and anxious and angry. So if you are arguing that this is some sort of feel-good measure then you are wrong. It doesn't feel good.

[KarenInMA]

57. Not to you, you're not an idiot.

I take the T in Boston everyday. I know this. It pisses me off when I see a cop hassle a 17 year old skater kid, because he doesn't like the kids haircut, or follows an Indian guy around because he doesn't know the difference from a Hindu and a Muslim and can't even racially profile correctly. I'm the choir, Stephanie. I know.

I also know that it makes the people who DON'T think the rights of other feel safer. It makes the people who don't even live in the city (or the state, or within 100 miles of a city) feel good that The State Is Watching Out For Us. That's why the searches won't stop. We live in a country where people support the Patriot Act because faux news told them to. Hell, they don't even know what the Patriot act says!! They just know that if there is a Police Officer in every subway stop in NYC, Well, the terrorists won't be able to get "us", and then, they won't have to switch from Oprah to CNN to get that delicious little thrill of fascinated horror every time the body count goes up like it did in London.

[Stephanie]

74. you don't make sense

and it's not worth my time to argue with you

[northzax]

64. welcome to the District of Columbia

where the cops all pack assault rifles when they want to. meaningless and useless.

[samsingh]

8. they can no longer hate us for our freedoms.

[CrispyQ]

120. LOL

:rofl: but :cry: too!

How bad does it have to get before Americans wake up & realize that that line no longer applies?

[samsingh]

170. it's pretty bad now and painfully ironic

[Twist_U_Up]

9. simply put WOW nominated

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Ok ok from the POV of prevention this is done

around the world even if this should seat very badly with everybody

By the way, when it comes to our officials, It has nothign to do with external terra... if it had, they would have started educating everygody what to look for right after 9.11

[despairing optimist]

13. I'm waiting for the "everybody through metal detectors" phase

"Please add 30 minutes to your commuting time to avoid being late for work or school. MTA thanks you for your patience and cooperation, and for riding MTA. MTA, Going Your Way."

The best way around this may be, when no one is looking, to take NYC away from the control freaks and set it up somewhere else.

[Crowdance]

104. Bali? Could we set it up there?

I've always wanted to live in Bali....

[KamaAina]

15. I've never been afraid of the terrorists

but now I have to be afraid of the Gestapo. Thanks a heap.

Don't think I'll be carrying any bags around when I go up there in Sept. You know, bags full of stuff I would have bought there...

[KamaAina]

16. Ways to monkeywrench the search?

Get a one-day MetroCard, ride around the subway all day carrying around a backpack full of something icky, like molasses, so as soon as the SS stick their grubby little hands in there...

[KamaAina]

157. Or, get a number of suitably brown-skinned people,

equip them with unlimited-use MetroCards, and have them all go through the system with empty backpacks. That'll drive the cops nuts!

[marmar]

17. All those businessmen better leave their porn mags at home...

Random searches are so pointless. There is no reasonable, common sense way to do this. The whole "scare them silly" movement is on again. The "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" quote from Benjamin Franklin doesn't even apply here because this is going to provide no safety at all.

:grr:

[Roland99]

18. [Devil's Advocate] - How is this different from airport security screening

[dogday]

23. I would think time constraits might be a problem

trying to catch different trains, if you are late by 10 minutes, you might miss it?

[Roland99]

26. Plan ahead.

:P

[dogday]

96. Plan for a search and seizure that day?

What if they want to check several people in front of me that look suspicious one day, what if they want to search my stuff two days in a row, I mean the scenarios could go on and on. You could not begin to know how to plan for it.....

[Roland99]

132. Oh, I know. I'm just looking at the constitutionality of it and how it...

could be justified. Still doesn't make it practical and it will certainly lead either to more profiling or more searches of little old ladies.

[dogday]

138. There just comes a point and time when you have to

say enough is enough. I mean let's face it, if someone wants to attack, they will. I am just glad these bombers are not cramming these bombs up their asses, I hate to think what kind of a check that would start....

[Roland99]

148. I'm surprised Richard Reid copycats haven't surfaced.

Then, we'd all have to be barefoot to travel.

[Eric J in MN]

168. it's different because of different risks

A small amount of explosive can kill hundreds in a plane by bringing it down.

A small amount of explosive on a train is no more-or-less dangerous than in other places with crowds.

[Roland99]

169. How many were killed in Madrid?

One is too many.

Unless you're trying to justify Homeland Insecurity's move to cut funding for rail security and feed it all to the airports where too much is wasted on bullshit procedures as it is.

[Eric J in MN]

176. They could have killed as many on the sidewalk. (nt)

nt

[Roland99]

179. Not likely.

[Eric J in MN]

181. There are crowded sidewalks in big cities (nt)

nt

[im10ashus]

19. I saw that too.

Everyone up here on my floor is pissed off. Do they think they person carrying the bomb will actually allow them to search their bag?

[FreedomAngel82]

40. I guess they're counting on stupidity??

[im10ashus]

56. Well, it's certainly a "stupid" idea in the first place.

So you could be right about that.

[K-W]

117. If you refuse the search they will take you in.

If you run they will chase you.

Technically random searches do protect against bombings, but they arent constitutional.

[Eric J in MN]

177. the New York Times article says that if you refuse a search,

they will let you leave the station.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/nyregion/21cnd-security.html?hp

People who do not submit to a search will be allowed to leave, but will not be permitted into the subway station.

[K-W]

180. I stand corrected, thanks. EOM

[dogday]

22. The More We See Terra Attacks-The More They

take away our rights. We as a nation need to ask ourselves, is this really worth it? No other country reacts so scared by these attacks like we do. London just shrugs it off, they don't take about terra terra teraa....

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Yeah, really

Why don't they have a "Patriot Act" and all that crap? Why do we? It's all B.S.!!!!

[madinmaryland]

24. What about the beers that i stuff in my briefcase

for the hour and a half ride home. They better not take my beers!

[Jersey Devil]

34. That's about all that's in those briefcases - lunch & vodka

When I used to ride the NYC subways every time someone would open up their briefcase all that was ever in there was lunch, a newspaper and sometimes martini fixings. Leave the damned things home, bring your lunch in a brown bag, carry your paper under your arm and leave the booze at home.

[madinmaryland]

72. I normally missed the trains with the bar cars, so

i would bring my own.

:beer:

[Jersey Devil]

137. LOL, sorry, but the thought of a bar car on a subway is too much

EVERY car is a bar car!

[madinmaryland]

146. I was thinking Metro North.

Sorry. Yea it would be pretty nasty on the subway. It's bad enough now. The worst is when someone brings mcdonalds food on the subway.

:puke:

[Jersey Devil]

149. Worst was in the mornings at the Bridge Plaza bus to the A train

I used to drive my car to Fort Lee, park and take a bus at the Bridge Plaza to get the A train at the GW Bridge. Standing in the aisle with some guy breathing martinis in your face at 7 am was enough to make you sick.

[Jersey Devil]

27. I don't get it. Why is this a bad thing?

I go to the courthouse quite often and not only have to pass through a metal detector, but my briefcase goes through an x-ray machine like the airport. Sure I don't like the delay but I feel safer afterwards. They started doing this in NYC federal court houses in the 1970s.

It also happens at the airport, sports venues and lots of other places.

Some guy gets on the A train with a backpack, cops ask for a peek, what's the big deal?

I have a kid that rides the A train every day after he rides a bus through the Lincoln Tunnel (where, btw, trucks are still examined). It makes me feel a hell of a lot better that there will be these checks.

[im10ashus]

35. I just don't see how it will deter the person with the bomb.

They see a cop coming up to them, they detonate early, or they are not the one that was "randomly" chosen. It's not a fool-proof way of doing it. They may as well put a screener at every subway and start screening everyone. Just my opinion though.

[Jersey Devil]

42. Are you familiar with NYC subways?

In most cases you don't just walk from the street onto a train. You pass through stations and tunnels that sometimes seem endless. They can make the checks in those areas before people ever get on the trains.

[im10ashus]

54. Um, yes, I live in Manhattan.

I just don't see how they will prevent someone from blowing up a bomb. It's a violation of our Fourth Amendment. AND what if the bomber isn't carrying a backpack? Thoughts?

[Jersey Devil]

62. 4th amendment protects your home and your person

but when your person is in a position to potentially cause harm to others your 4th amendment rights are limited. I don't ride the trains often anymore but my son rides them every day. I would rather put up with a few moment inconvenience than to blow up - that's all it boils down to.

Are random stops totally effective? Of course not, nothing is. But if someone is carrying a large package, backpack or wearing a baggy coat in the middle of July I'd like to think that the cops would be checking on them for the safety of the riding public.

[im10ashus]

89. Good point.

Our Constitution is purposely vague enough to interpret the Fourth Amendment for this particular scenario. If a State decides it necessary, then it will be so, whether we like it or not. I just think they will use this as an opportunity to mess with people and it will further profile certain races and ethnicities.

[Jersey Devil]

92. If it is abused it can be dealt with

There are enough civil liberties lawyers in NYC to file a gazillion suits for civil rights violations.

[Telly Savalas]

182. So does driving a Ryder truck then consitute probable cause?

If I'm standing on a busy street corner, then my backpack might contain a bomb which has the potential to take out hundreds of people. Does this mean I should be vulnerable to a search if I wear a backpack on a crowded corner?

[K-W]

122. Yah, who needs privacy,

Are you really saying you cant see the problem with letting the police search people without cause?

[Village Idiot]

30. Welcome to the New Police State, Citizen!!!

The next thing we will begin to hear is "Papers!!! Papers, please!!!" in similar fashion to the Bundeswehr shouting "Auswiess, bitte" at German train stations...

[FreedomAngel82]

31. This is scary and disgusting

[Jersey Devil]

36. Do you ride the NYC subways?

I wonder how many of those in this string who are objecting get on the trains every day.

[Beetwasher]

47. I Do

Every day. And so does Stephanie.

[Jersey Devil]

49. Let's say you are at the Port Authority Terminal at 42nd St

and the cops are making random stops of people with backpacks in the tunnels or the concourses. Young men with big backpacks in the summer when schools are closed. It would be stupid not to ask to look in them, don't you think? And it would inconvenience no one except those with backpacks, most of whom probably only have their lunch in it anyway.

[Beetwasher]

51. I Don't Like Slippery Slopes, Do You?

Keep chiseling away until there's nothing left. Good idea, bad idea, the constitution expressly forbids this sort of thing and for good reason.

[Jersey Devil]

55. I suppose you don't fly or go to ballgames for the same reason?

How is this different?

[Beetwasher]

60. My Tax Money Pays For the Subway

Ballparks and Airlines are private, that's one difference.

Keep giving away your rights and soon you won't have any.

[im10ashus]

94. I do.

And I don't commute from Jersey either. I live right here in Manhattan. Take the train or bus every damn where in the city.

[MadHound]

43. Well folks, Osama just won. Game, set and match.

He hated us for our freedoms and our openness, but now that is all history. Random searches are now going to be the order of the day, the Constitution is well on its way to being shredded, religious fundementalism is taking over the country, and fear, loathing, hate along with all other baser emotions rule the country.

Congratulations George, you just lost the War on Terror.

[CrispyQ]

128. That little rant would make an excellent LTTE. -eom

[newswolf56]

46. What a lot of younger people don't know is that...

NYPD, the Transit Police etc. have wanted to do this since the 1960s as a means of cracking down on recreational drug use, also to (further) disarm women and people who live in the ghettos, who for self-defense frequently carry knives, hatpins, icepicks etc. in purses and shoulder bags. (A shoulder bag is a useful male accessory in the City, much more practical than a brief case.)

What this means is that, thanks to Islamic terrorism and Bush's response, true police-state fascism has finally come to NYC.

Shoulder-bag users and women especially should remember that in New York State under the Rockefeller drug laws -- someone please correct me if they have since been repealed -- possession of even a single joint (or possession of so much as one seed) will get you five years. Carrying a knife or similar weapon -- even a tiny pen-knife -- is technically a violation of the dread Sullivan Law and can also send you away for a long time -- up to 10 years -- if the police decide on zero-tolerance: if for example a cop takes offense because you are wearing an anti-war button. Sanitize purses, shoulder-bags and apparel accordingly.

[Jersey Devil]

52. What are you saying? It interferes with people carrying weapons & drugs?

Concealed weapons are illegal (as are drugs). If someone is packing iron on the A train then I have no pity for them if they are caught.

[newswolf56]

98. In the years I lived in Manhattan, every woman I knew carried...

a knife or an icepick or some similar kind of edged or pointed self-defense weapon in her purse -- even the women who were most stridently anti-gun. The people who had the misfortune to live in the ghettos did likewise -- men usually carrying pocket knives, but in this case the practice had little to do with gender. This was from the '60s through the '80s, and a fairly upscale crowd: my professional milieu was media, my social milieu was bohemia. Moreover it would be absolutely absurd not to recognize that Manhattan was (and probably still is) the recreational drug-use capitol of the U.S., especially for marijuana: not "addicts" or "drug criminals," merely hard-working people (especially in media) who occasionally liked to get high.

Carrying a knife is not -- at least as far as I am concerned -- the same thing as "packing iron."

But I believe the (revised) Sullivan Law treats all such offenses -- gun or knife it matters not -- the same. It used to be that no knife with a blade under 4" was considered a weapon: a Swiss Army Knife was legal, a switchblade was not. But somewhere I heard or read the law was changed so that the airline regulations apply: ANY knife is now technically illegal -- which if true is absolutely absurd. However I have been away from the City for many years and therefore -- as I noted above -- can no longer speak on its laws with any authority at all: I am merely raising the issue as a caution.

But do not doubt for a minute these unconstitutional searches target many more people than terrorists. Nor doubt that soon we'll be seeing them all over America. The drug police especially have been demanding this for years.

The real issue here is "probably cause." But, in truth, the Fourth Amendment was totally nullified years ago -- this with the advent of forcible drug testing.

[Stephanie]

153. New York has changed

I was here in the 80's and I believe you, but it's not true anymore. No woman I know carries any weapon. It's absurd.

[Cassandra]

165. I've never carried a weapon

except for the few times when I've had to carry a kitchen knife to a picnic sort of situation.
I wonder how long New Yorkers will put up with having to take even longer than now to get where we're going before we all rebel.

[newswolf56]

166. Absurd is right. My understanding is the knife ban went into effect...

the same time the City banned and confiscated (without compensation) several categories of rifles and shotguns that (though required to be registered) were previously legal -- the pending anti-gun measure one of the many narrowings of freedom that sadly prompted me to leave. (The old knife law, in the years I lived there, merely said no switchblades or gravity knives, hunting knives okay, but nothing with a blade over 4".) I always carried a Swiss Army knife, not as a weapon (an umbrella point, a photographic tripod or merely a tightly rolled copy of The Times would have served very nicely for that purpose) but because of the Swiss Army Knife's overall usefulness as a tool, especially when I was doing photography or paste-ups: ground down to fit eyeglasses and camera-lens screws, the smaller screwdriver was invaluable, and the smaller knife blade, kept razor-sharp, was as good as an X-acto.

That said, of all the urban places I have lived, I never felt safer than I did in Manhattan, even when I lived in Alphabet City -- Avenue B between 3rd and 4th Streets -- this during the middle '60s, when it was the second most dangerous neighborhood in the whole borough. (I am not a particularly large or formidable looking man, but I was never robbed on the street or in the subway, nor mistaken for a helpless tourist: perhaps the legacy of the fact I was born in the City and spent my first three years there, though I grew up elsewhere; or perhaps just the legacy of the fact I truly felt Manhattan was my home -- at least professionally speaking.)


Ah yes, the good old days...

[SteppingRazor]

58. This is NOT a violation of the Fourth Amendment

As I posted in several other threads on this topic, the search is voluntary. If you don't want your bag searched, you can turn around and leave and not get on the subway.

I'm as disgusted by this as anyone -- the First and the Fourth Amendments are my favorites! :) -- but this does not violate the Fourth.

[Beetwasher]

63. Bullshit

Voluntary my ass. You have no idea if it's voluntary. Have you tried to walk away from a cop after he asks to search your bag? Try it and just see what happens.

It is in essence a mandatory search for people who MUST take public transportation to get to work.

[SteppingRazor]

68. Whoa! Don't shoot the messenger, dude!

I don't like this at all. I'm just pointing out that this isn't a violation of the Constitution, and that is the justification that will be used should this come to court.

What ought to happen is, someone should refuse the search and walk away, get nabbed by the cops, and THEN sue in court.

In the meantime, please don't accuse me of being someone who applauds overzealous police tactics. I'm as far from that as anyone you will ever meet in your life.

[Beetwasher]

70. It Is A Violation

It is in essence a mandatory search. Many people have no choice and MUST use public transportation to get to work.

I didn't accuse you of anything. Don't be so touchy.

[SteppingRazor]

85. Sorry. I'm not usually the touchy type...

Most people around here have their personal causes. After seeing the FTAA protests in Miami in 2003, fighting against jackbooted thugs wearing badges who overstep their legal authority became one of mine. So I get all whiny and bitchy when someone accuses me of applauding such tactics.

In any case, if one tries to go to court and say that this constitutes a mandatory search because of the necessity of the subway, the court will just rule that this causes no "undue strain" and that the actions of police in preventing terrorism outweigh such "minor" concerns -- without demonstrable violations of civil rights, this policy is legally sound.

[Beetwasher]

91. You Have No Idea How the Courts Will Rule

and the search doesn't have to be mandatory, merely unreasonable to be unconstitutional.

[SteppingRazor]

108. True about "merely unreasionable" but the SCOTUS's ruling on "reasonable"

makes this search certainly reasonable. In fact, per Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Assn., similar actions were found reaosnable simply because of "special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement." This case will likely apply.

Further, per Johnson v. United States, actual knowledge of the right of refusal is not even necessary (i.e. the cops don't have to tell you you have the right to walk away).

Anyone who has studied fourth amendment case law can easily predict the outcome of a court case based on the voluntary search of baggage on a public conveyance -- the cops will win. So it's not like I have "no idea how the courts will rule." In fact, I have a pretty good idea.

[Beetwasher]

123. If That's True

It's sad and pathetic. This is abuse just waiting to happen.

[SteppingRazor]

130. I completely agree.

This IS abuse just waiting to happen. The sad fact is that the abuse has to happen before anyone can do anything about it.

[im10ashus]

140. It's sad but true.

I've conferred with a few attorneys here and sadly, they agree that this will be won by the city, if someone files suit. It is a shame to see such a random misuse of power, but our Constitution is deliberately vague so that States can freely interpret. It won't deter anyone from doing their little suicide missions.

[LynneSin]

67. I'm not from NYC but I've been there enough to know that is not an option

Owning a car is a near impossiblity unless you're fabulously wealthy

Taking Taxi's is still almost impossible unless you're well-to-do

Taking the Bus is almost doable if you don't mind being stuck in traffic jams all day trying to get from one borough to another.

This isn't about the 1st & 4th, this is about the obvious which is racial profiling. If I'm a white woman with a bag getting on the subway, I'm probably way less likely to be searched than if I'm a brown-skin man carrying a bag

[SteppingRazor]

71. Agreed.

And since the cops said they wouldn't racially profile in the same breath in which they said searches were voluntary, we should wait until they violate one or both of these promises, and then get this police action thrown out in court. But until these violations can be shown, they're in the right from a legal standpoint.

[ultraist]

141. Voluntary my ass!

AtT the least, it's coercion. 'Submit to being searched without probable cause or you will not be allowed to use this PUBLIC SERVICE.'

[LynneSin]

61. Well, if you're white this shouldn't affect you

If you're not white well you're fucked because we know how these searches end up working

:cry:

[Jersey Devil]

76. Would you prefer they search everyone?

I understand your complaint and you are probably right. But what is the alternative? We know these types of attacks will come sooner or later. What should we do about it? If NY did nothing at all and a train was blown up people would want the heads of the Mayor and the Police Commissioner.

[MadHound]

155. Please friend, this isn't going to make you any safer

Just like the 911 hijackers wouldn't have been prevented by our current airport security, this measure will not make it any less likely that somebody will blow up the New York subway system.

What this will do is to push us further and further into a police state, without the attendant safety.

What we need to do is to stop making more terrorists. We are making more terrorists every day in Iraq. We have made thousands of terrorists with our actions concerning Israel and the Mid East. We even made Osama with our meddling in Afghanistan.

A police state will do nothing to prevent terrorism, it will only serve to make the US over in a fascist mode. The only way to win this so called War on Terror is to stop making terrorists.

[Amaya]

66. I'm in NYC quite often and I ride the subway everywhere

and I don't think this will make things feel safer. Also, NYC cops are notorious for fucking with people because they can. hmmmm... no, this isn't good.

[genieroze]

79. Hum Randomly = Arab looking people? Will they occasionally

grab a black or white person and say " were not racist"

[texanwitch]

88. In Houston we have a little toy train that goes down Main Street and just

the other day the Transit Cops wearing combat type gear and guns are on the little train. This isn't about being safe on a train, it is about getting you used to having no rights.

[newswolf56]

113. You're absolutely right. The distance between this and searches...

to make certain we're all carrying our mandatory Bibles is far less than the distance we have already gone toward nullifying the Fourth Amendment, first with mandatory drug testing, property seizures and the presumption of guilt in some categories of charges, now with mandatory physical searches.

[texanwitch]

135. I have a friend who grew up in East Germany, she is making plans

to leave the US, don't blame her. She said one East Germany was enough for her.

[jonnyblitz]

115. guess that is the end for me carrying my stash in my backpack

when in NYC...

[K-W]

124. I was thinking along similar lines. EOM

[bluestateguy]

131. Like trying to swat flies in junkyard

I'd go along with metal detectors that EVERYONE would have to pass through at the subway station (that includes white male businessmen), but this random search thing is just a feelgood measure that won't work. They'll find more drug paraphernalia than anything else. Some terrorist will not change his plans because of this. He's going to blow himself up anyway, I'm sure he is willing to take the small chance of being arrested.

[Sam_Lowry]

156. It's never been about terrorism folks

It's about control. This is merely another way for the state to assert power over it's people. End of story. The "authorities" know damn well that they won't get any terrorists this way, but it's an exceptional harrassment and intimidation tool, just like searches at airports, and random "sobriety checkpoints" are. And will only bombs be considered? Those with pot, or coke, or a kid under 18 carrying the Hustler from dad's drawer will be let through, riiiight? After all, this is to fight terrorism, correct? Not other types of non-violent crime?

Anyone here recognize this exchange?:

'The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.' He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: 'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'

Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said

"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation"


Like perhaps, forcing him to prove his innocence, so that he may travel is his own country? Or forcing humiliation or imprisonment upon him should he refuse to do so? hmmmmm

[Stephanie]

159. Welcome to DU

This is not about terrorism - it's about intimidation.

[centristo]

158. this will suck big time

but the New York Subways are virtually undefended. It is scares me how easy it would be for some terrorist to walk down there in street clothes with a backpack or whatever and blow the crap out of the Q train with me or someone I love on it. I can't believe it hasn't happened yet.

We need to quit spending millions on biohazard gear for the East Bumblefuck, South Dakota's Sheriff's Office and start overhauling the mass transit systems of our major metropolitan areas.

I feel like a sitting duck with a giant bullseye on my ass.

[Jersey Devil]

163. Why isn't everyone in NY, LA, etc., screaming about this?

Your statement - "We need to quit spending millions on biohazard gear for the East Bumblefuck, South Dakota's Sheriff's Office and start overhauling the mass transit systems of our major metropolitan areas."

Like someone is going to blow up Oshkosh or Billings, Montana. For Chrissakes, they have their heads up their asses treating homeland security exactly the same as any other pork barrel crap and no one even speaks up about it in government.

That's what Hillary should be screaming her lungs out about, not freakin video games.

[Eric J in MN]

172. A terrorist could do that in any place crowded with people.

The answer isn't to let the police search the bags of anyone they choose.

It's to pursue actual terrorists with good investigative work.

[Swamp Rat]

167. "Osama Bin Laden" is winning.

It is a fact.

[Yavin4]

171. The Terrorists Can Stop Hating Us For Our Freedoms

beause we don't have them any more.

[KamaAina]

178. By the way, who's paying for all this? Not Homeland Security*.

Chertoff said so out loud last weekend.

Looks like the long-suffering NYC taxpayer will get hit with a great big fat bill for NYPD overtime. :puke: