Say you're a subway bomber in New York, and a cop wants to search you.

[Goldmund]

You refuse, and the cop tells you you can't take the subway.

So what do you do then? Is your plan foiled?

Nope. You walk to the next station and try there. If they search one in ten people (which I doubt they could even do), the probability that you'll be stopped three times in a row is one in a thousand. If you fit some "suspicious" profile, say those chances increase... 10 times, to be generous? That leaves us with a one-percent chance you'll be stopped in three tries. In New York, there are usually three stations in a 20-block stretch.

So HOW THE FUCK is this going to stop even a completely unsophisticated attacker?

As far as I'm concerned, this is proof positive that this is nothing but a political stunt. Even if you forget civil liberties arguments, this is a political stunt on its face just based on its common sense lack of any pretense of effectiveness.

Another thing is...

It always kicks my ass how Bloomberg, Bush's scrotum-sucker Pataki's ass licker, always pushes policies down NY's throat that look like they're designed for a red city. Like New Yorkers will be like "Ohhh no! terraists! Bush come save us" and Bush will skyrocket to a 25% approval rating in NYC? Please. They're not that dumb.

They are doing this solely for red-state effect. New Yorkers won't say "Ohhh no! Terrraists! Bush save us", but Mississipians (apologies to Mississippi liberals, of course) will. They are simply trying to amplify the national political effect of the bombings in London, which are failing to grant them a bump they were hoping for.

[democracyindanger]

1. Actually, the bomber

would just set the explosives off right there and then, in the bottleneck created by the inspection point.

[Goldmund]

2. Another good point

[readmylips]

7. This went through my mind too....

New York city subway system is a city under a city, a couple of stories high. There are more people under the subway tunnels than what you find walking on city streets each morning. People are packed like sardines. The whole thing has to be for show. There's no way each and every person taking the trains at 7:00 AM through 9:00 AM would be search. The trains would come to a complete stand-still. You are talking about millions of people. Folks, New York City is not Kansas.

[Beetwasher]

3. The Bomber Wouldn't Even Let The Cop Talk To Him

He'd see the cop and go somewhere else where the was no cop.

People like to say "But they search you at airports!"

Guess what, airport security is mandated by law. If they want to do this on the subways, let them mandate it by law too, that way, it will have gone through SOME process and not be mandated dictatorially by executive fiat.

[Goldmund]

13. Exactly

:thumbsup:

[LeftNYC]

4. Bloomers is doing it all for show. Got him in the newspaper...

"oh look Bloomie is protecting us". Doesnt mean diddly squat.

[slaveplanet]

22. I don't buy that...

This is to set precedent for controlling public right of way. It violates the 4th ammendment and the publics right of freedom of travel.

The subway is public , not private like the airlines.

does Bloomgerg control San Francisco, LA, Chicago and Detroit too?..

this is way above Bloomberg and it's not going away...It will only expand...It's the hallmark of totalitarian societies that rule by impulse or predeterimed plan and disregard court rulings.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

5. great post Goldmund, and spot on analysis

Bloomberg is scum and this is a huge waste of Taxpayer money, and a total infringelment of out 6th amendment rights and unconstitutional to boot!

[tocqueville]

6. actually it's very difficult to catch someone

but the situation is the same in the Paris subway right now and it's not a stunt

and nobody here thinks it has to do with civil liberties, but with a "war" situation. We are on red alert, which is the level just under
the scarlet level (state of emergency)

Paris subway was actually bombed several times 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Islamist_terror_bombings_in_France

I can tell you that the methods video monitoring and massive police and military presence.

And here if somebody refused to open a bag they'll arrest him, and if the guy start running they'll shoot him. As they did in London today.

OK, Bush is not our president, and it makes things different. I can assure you that the Rench measures have the support of the population.

[Goldmund]

11. It's different in many ways

Not only because Bush is not your president, but because the French conception of civil liberties is very different from the American. For example, the ban on all religious symbols in schools would never fly here without a fundamental change in society. Guantanamo Bay wouldn't cause the outrage in France that it has among American Liberals. And there are many other examples -- this is due to the differences between respective histories of France and the US. I'm, of course, not claiming that one is more "free" than the other -- the citizens of both are free in some respects and not in others, though the specific "respect"s may differ.

It's also different in the fact that the Paris subway system is a different animal from NY. I live in NY and I've been in Paris -- subways are in average much less congested in Paris. There is a lower flow of people in stations. Paris is less centralized than New York, which has an incredibly pronounced focus toward the Southern half of Manhattan. At rush hour, subway stations from 72nd to Wall Street are so packed that there is no theoretical way to ensure effective searches. As it is, you often have to wait for a 3rd or 4th train before you can get on. There is also no electronic infrastructure such as cameras, which, as you say, are everywhere in Paris -- the have some, but the guy in the booth never even pays attention to them, and they cover only parts of only some stations.

Another difference is that cops in NY cannot arrest you if you refuse to be searched. That's because we have 4th Amendment here and searching people whom there is no reason to suspect is unconstitutional: and any court will refuse to consider a refusal to be searched a sufficient grounds for criminal suspicion, since one in every few people actually do refuse to be searched simply based on the fact that it offends their senses of civil liberties, as we understand them here.

There are fundamentally deep, historic reasons why we have the 4th amendment, and rescinding it would fundamentally alter the nature of this society. Americans wouldn't stand for it, if they realized that these kinds of measures lead toward that destination. If you did a referendum here and asked the question "Do you support rescinding the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?", it wouldn't pass even in the reddest of states.

[tocqueville]

14. Our conception of civil liberties is the same

The "same" founding fathers wrote them

1) the scarf ban has only to do with the separation of Church and State, which is unclear in the US constitution. The ban was ENDORSED by all muslim organisations in France, except for some fundies, both muslims and CHRISTIAN.

2) Your statement about Guantanamo is nearly insulting. It would be legally IMPOSSIBLE in France to have such an arrangement. I take it that you are not aware of the French position regarding such things. It might have happened before in occupied territory, but would be impssible today. Should I remind you of the Japanese camps in the USA during WWII ? And at that time no neocons were in charge.

3) I agree with you that nobody can be arrested here if you are not suspected. But the fact that you refuse create a suspicion. The attitude you describe is BTW inconsistent. According to you and the same type of reasoning you cannot arrest anybody refusing to show one's driving license or to be tested for DUI. And in reality it's not like that. No matter you sober or not.

4) the Patriot Act, the lawsuits and punishments during the Mc Carthy period show that the 4th amendment is worth NOTHING IN A LEGAL WAY, depending of the Government in charge.

5) the UK has more videos than France and very few over there complain about an infrigment of personal liberties, since the tapes are not archived unless there is a lawsuit. same goes for France.

In a secure environment the attitude can of course be more permmissive. But in a war or war-like situation it's different, as long it is used to PROTECT the population and not to control it.

[Goldmund]

15. Okay

1) I agree -- this is an example where France has MORE freedom, not less. I support that ban. I'm only saying that according to the American conception of civil liberties, this wouldn't fly.

2) Not according to what I know. Look here for example: http://www.atsnn.com/story/104468.html

Over the past several years, especially following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, French authorities have adopted some of the toughest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe - including pre-emptive arrests, ethnic profiling, interrogation without the presence of defense attorneys.

Authorities have more than 40 mosques under watch. Police agents in civilian clothes reportedly mill in and outside mosques, recording speeches of the prayer leaders, or imams.

As a result, most of the radical preaching that calls for jihad, or holy war, and aims to recruit young Frenchmen for the insurgency in Iraq is not carried out in the open, said Gilles Leclair, director of France's Anti-Terrorism Coordination Unit.

"Most of them are clandestine ... secret prayer rooms, not in the official mosques," Leclair told The Associated Press.

So authorities sometimes use unconventional tactics.

According to Leclair, if officials have information that "Mr. Mohammed X" is a suspect but have no solid evidence, they have no qualms about finding something in his personal life, like a past complaint from his abused wife, to detain him for questioning.

Note that Guantanamo is illegal according to American law as well -- the Administration is doing something clearly unconstitutional. According to my understanding of French law -- which, admittedly, is based mostly on news articles and such -- there is much less required in order to arrest and detain someone. You yourself described cops chasing and shooting a person who refuses to be searched, and that with support of the population; here, that particular dynamic would be different. My mention of Guantamo Bay is simply an extrapolation of that argument.

3) Good points on driver's licences and DUI tests (you do know that you can only be required to show ID if you're driving, right?) -- however, that's because driving is defined as a privilege, not a right. You are using public roads with the understanding that you may be asked to participate in DUI tests etc... that's the idea behind it, and people acquiesce to it because it's in their interest to. Nobody wants drunk drivers on the road, and this effectively stops them. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not necessairly expressing my judgement of anything, I'm simply trying to explain how it's perceived here. When something is a "privilege" and not a right, 4th Amendment isn't operative. Of course, one of the chief ways that the BushCo fascists take away civil liberties is by defining more and more things as merely "privileges" (hey, if you don't want us to check your background, you don't have to read books! -- it's up to you). Public transportation is still, I think, perceived as intrinsic to the right of free movement. Now, if there were an equivalent risk/benefit equation in the case of subways as there is in the case of drunk driving, I suspect that even liberals wouldn't object to 4th Amendment exceptions for public transportation. But it isn't -- not even close, which was one of the points of my first post.

4) That's a perfectly good point, and I agree. And liberals back then were just as outraged as they are now. I'm not speaking about what the government may or may not do (they're obviously doing the subway thing, for example) -- but what the liberal idea of American constitution would find objectionable and what it wouldn't.

5) I'm not sure about your claim that "very few in the UK complain"... but again, each society is very different. And I think you're taking my coments in a much more qualitative light than I intend them to be. I'm not saying that this means that France (or the UK) isn't free -- for example, I think that if the US media could ever grill American politicians like the French or British media grill theirs, it would do a fuckload more for our civil liberties than not having cameras or not being searched in the subway. But that's because of American corporate/business law, which results in conglomerates and media monopolies -- and is, as I said, much more damaging to liberty than subway searches or cameras.

...as long it is used to PROTECT the population and not to control it.

What I proposed is that this does NOTHING to protect the population. In addition, as you noted, Bush is our president and there is a long and rich history of manipulating fears of terrorism for political benefit, and a very poor history of actual protection. Put these two together and voila: the sensical conclusion is that this is likely another purely political stunt. And a precedent for future erosions of civil liberties.

[tocqueville]

19. I don't understand your comparison with Guantanamo

Guantanamo has been compared to the "Gulag of out Times" where torture is practiced. I don't see what it has to do with surveillance of mosques (which of course can be discussed in its context).

France has a bad record regarding that stuff. Similar methods were used in Algeria, but its EXACTLY what caused the French government to fall at that time and why De Gaulle came back to power. When it came to the public knowledge the outrage was so massive, that people took to the streets.

Today a phenomenon like Guantanamo (specially AFTER Guantanamo) isn't politically possible in Europe, unless there is a facist take over.

"I think that if the US media could ever grill American politicians like the French or British media grill theirs, it would do a fuckload more for our civil liberties than not having cameras or not being searched in the subway. But that's because of American corporate/business law, which results in conglomerates and media monopolies -- and is, as I said, is much more damaging to liberty than subway searches or cameras."

agrees completely

[Goldmund]

21. Cool, let me withdraw that comparison

I meant it more symbolically, anyway -- what you are saying is that it would hurt cultural sensibilities. Maybe so. But legally speaking, if you can openly do surveillance on people not suspected of any crime, or interrogate them without a lawyer or arrest them with a "probable cause" constructed out of thin air (domestic abuse or whatever) -- well, that's what Guantanamo is. It may be that to Europeans, culturally speaking, it looks too much like a concentration camp (which it is), with a whole bunch of detainees in the middle of nowhere all wearing orange jumpsuits. But in dry legal terms I don't see the difference between Guantanamo and practices that the French population already accepts -- and please correct me if I'm wrong here.

[tocqueville]

27. I think that you misunderstand

1) surveillance doesn't mean a bunch of armed guys around a mosque. It's done by covert infiltration. Remember that we have plenty of citizens of Arabic descent which are loyal to France first of all.
It means that they have a bunch of guys in there with open ears and eyes. It has been proven being very efficient.

I imagine that the FBI is doing the same thing in the US and that it is legal.

2) probable cause doesn't mean "domestic abuse". It means that in 99% of the cases that the guy has been given by a snitch or went in to buy 40 pounds of fertilizer. But a case of domestic abuse and a subsequent visit of the cops can arouse suspicion if the guys start to tell them it's stand in the Koran I have the right to beat my wife.
They must have SOMETHING on the guy, or else the job wouldn't be efficient.

3) Interrogation without a lawyer is limited for a certain amount of time, and it's only for very special cases. I know for sure that they don't use torture, because it has been proven it is not efficient. They make them sing using psychological tricks.

4) You still must make a difference between a bunch of "enemy combattants" detained undefinetely when it's common knowledge that 90% of them were a bunch of losers fighting for the Talibans as a way of living, imprisoned in a camp - AND covert infiltration of sensible communities.

5) I don't deny that ABUSES and mistakes can occur. But be sure that if it known our equivalents of the ACLU will report it. So far I haven't seen any major condemnations from Anesty for example.

[tocqueville]

17. Civil Liberties in Europe/France FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Article 5 – Right to liberty and security

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;

the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.c of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.


compare with the 4th amemdment "probable cause"

in practice I don't see any major differences

[Eric J in MN]

26. That says nothing about searches. The 4th amendment is

about searches.

[tocqueville]

29. It does indeed

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html#3

Probable Cause .--The concept of ''probable cause'' is central to the meaning of the warrant clause. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor the federal statutory provisions relevant to the area define ''probable cause;'' the definition is entirely a judicial construct . An applicant for a warrant must present to the magistrate facts sufficient to enable the officer himself to make a determination of probable cause. ''In determining what is probable cause . . . e are concerned only with the question whether the affiant had reasonable grounds at the time of his affidavit . . . for the belief that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched; and if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant.'' 95 Probable cause is to be determined according to ''the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.'' 96 Warrants are favored in the law and utilization of them will not be thwarted by a hypertechnical reading of the sup porting affidavit and supporting testimony. 97 For the same reason, reviewing courts will accept evidence of a less ''judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant.'' 98 Courts will sustain the determination of probable cause so long as ''there was substantial basis for to conclude that'' there was probable cause. 99

[Eric J in MN]

30. first you quoted from a European document, now

you're quoting from something about the US Constitution.

My point was that the European document you quoted didn't discuss searches.

It discussed arrest.

[tocqueville]

31. my mistake

searches are involved in the european equivalent of probable causes...

looking for details... takes time

[tocqueville]

32. I found it : actual laws are a temporary derogation to "normal" laws

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1630864.stm

basically it makes it easier to search on suspicion, when a warrant normally should have been needed

[Son of California]

8. why can't people just accept

that the world is a dangerous place.

I guess if the searches weren't random, but were based on on-the-spot judgement calls by the caps it could have a change to work.

but really, I don't think the terrorists are going to bomb NY again.

We have to put into perspective the motives of the terrorists and what they are trying to accomplish. I think if their is another terrorist attack in the US is will happen in a red state, as punishment for voting for Bush and defacto the war in Iraq, just as the bombs in London are a punishment for voting for Blair and for the Iraq war.

[tocqueville]

9. next are Italy, Holland and Denmark stated by Al Quaeda

"we don't have to fight them here"

Thank you GW

[Ian David]

18. To paraphrase Rob Corddry, "we've created a coalition of the bombable."

Rob Corddry, TDS's Senior UK and Falkland Islands Correspondent, chimes in. Corddry is happy to report that the London attacks are clearly yet another sign that President Bush's war on terror is working. The whole point, he says, was to get terrorist attacks away from America. We did it! Stewart is a bit confused by Corddry's happiness and reminds him that Great Britain is an American ally. Corddry in turn reminds Stewart that Bush lists his allies not only as supporters but as the "coalition of the bombable". The English are taking this all stoically, carrying on well. "It's disgraceful," Corddry says. "C'mon! Where are the bumper stickers, the Union Jack lapel pins, the wanted dead or alive posters?" He's frustrated about the lack of sudden national pride. "This American likes his sorrow in t-shirt form!"

More:
http://www.tvsquad.com/2005/07/12/the-daily-show-july-11-2005/

[Beetwasher]

10. They Bombed WTC in '92 and again on 9/11

OBL and AQ LOVES repeat performances, it's part of the M.O. to hit the same place again and again just show that he can and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[Goldmund]

12. Nah,

they'll bomb NY as a punishment for voting AGAINST Bush -- if anything.

[geek tragedy]

16. Or you just blow up everyone waiting behind you.

Panic move.

[the_spectator]

20. Good point!

Bottom line for the rest of us though, right now, is that they are only searching BAGS. So to our NYC friends on this fine Friday night, if you're holding, put it in your pocket!
:smoke:

[osaMABUSh]

23. Right, first thing I thought was, duh, just go to the next station

So if the bomber gets stopped, he just refuses the search and walks away. And he figures he is going to die anyway if his plan succeeds so this possible inspection is just a slight delay for him.

As an exercise in how impossible it it to stop these bombers, next time you board a bus or subway pretend to yourself that you are a bomber, then see if you get on-board.

[Eric J in MN]

24. I made this point on my blog.

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_07_22_mayor_michael_bloomberg_of_new_york_vs_freedom.asp

[Disturbed]

25. The more terrorist attacks to closer Amerika...

moves toward a Police State. The Bush Regime and the RW are all in favor of that.

[ohio_liberal]

28. Please

None of it is supposed to make sense. Now open your handbag and go about your business ;)

[sweetheart]

33. Why bother with subways

If i've 10 pounds of military C4, i can head for any highrise building
or hotel and have more impact.

The police in NYC will never stop terroism, as much as they were
merely witnesseses to 9/11 and nothing preventive.... its a scam
to take taxpayer funds and funnel it to the police state.. nothing more.